The Implant Industry Just Changed.

TRI Dental Implants built a restorative connection for direct digital manufacturing instead of adapting one later. Dr. Jim Arnold looks at what removing the conventional abutment actually changes, and what it doesn’t.

I’ve been in dentistry long enough to know that new products and real changes aren’t the same thing. Dental companies introduce new surfaces, instruments, software, and restorative components every year. Most improve something at the margins. A smaller number force you to reconsider the workflow itself. TRI Dental Implants belongs in that second group, and here’s the clinical question it raises: if digital manufacturing can support a restoration directly at implant level, what does the extra component still contribute in a given case?

The idea behind TRI’s matrix® system is unusually simple. Remove the conventional abutment from the restorative pathway and design the implant connection for direct digital manufacturing. The restoration gets planned directly on the implant rather than built around a prefabricated intermediary component. That doesn’t make every conventional implant system obsolete, and it doesn’t make every case appropriate for a different workflow. But it does create a legitimate clinical question worth examining, and that’s what the rest of this piece does.

What Assumption Is Worth Reopening?

Conventional implant restorative workflows have long centered on three pieces: implant, abutment, and restoration. That sequence became familiar because it works. It also developed during a period when restorative manufacturing, impressions, and component design looked very different from what clinicians use today.

Digital dentistry changed the surrounding workflow first. Intraoral scanning replaced many physical impressions. CAD/CAM made patient-specific design routine. Milling and 3D printing moved more manufacturing closer to the point of care. Yet the basic restorative connection often stayed built around a separate abutment or Ti-base.

TRI took a different route. The FDA-cleared TRI-matrix® Implant Line includes a patient-specific CAD/CAM restorative design that can function as the final restoration directly on the implant. The original U.S. clearance, K203660, was issued in December 2021. The matrix® X-Force implant received a separate 510(k), K242661, in January 2025. I checked both clearances against the FDA’s own database rather than taking either company’s word for it, and the dates hold up.

Those are regulatory facts. The more interesting question is what clinicians choose to do with the pathway they make possible.

What Does “Abutment-Free” Actually Mean?

Brett Jackson, who leads TRI’s sales efforts in the western United States and sits on the Foundation Dental Alliance Advisory Board, has been using the term Abutment-Free Restorative Concepts, or A.R.C., to describe the broader restorative idea. His public posts continue to use that term around direct-to-fixture digital workflows.

I think the term is useful because it keeps the conversation bigger than one implant brand. The question isn’t simply whether a dentist likes TRI. The question is whether restorative implant dentistry needs the same number of interfaces it historically used, now that the restoration can be designed and manufactured digitally for that specific implant position and patient.

Fewer components can mean fewer inventory decisions, fewer restorative handoffs, and fewer places where fit or workflow can get complicated. A screw-retained, abutment-free restoration also avoids cement at that connection, which removes cement-related complications from that specific restorative pathway. It doesn’t eliminate peri-implant disease, biological risk, prosthetic complications, or the need for sound case selection. A simpler system isn’t a risk-free system.

What Does the Engineering Actually Support?

TRI describes matrix® as an implant connection designed specifically for digital manufacturing rather than adapted later for it. Its current product materials continue to position the system around direct CAD/CAM or 3D-printed restorations without a conventional abutment.

The company also demonstrates a direct-to-implant crown load test in which a matrix® restoration withstands 177 kilograms. That’s useful mechanical evidence, but it’s still a company demonstration, and it should be understood that way rather than treated as a substitute for long-term clinical evidence.

The clinical evidence is growing too. TRI’s own 4.5-year post-market follow-up materials cover 2,334 matrix® implants, and the company reports a 99.3% success rate with 100% osseointegration in that survey. I want to be direct about where that number comes from: it’s TRI’s own reported data, not an independent published study I could verify against a third-party source. It’s worth noting that an older company figure once cited 99.7% at the same follow-up point. The 99.3% figure is the one TRI’s current materials use, and it’s the one I’m using here. Encouraging numbers and company-reported numbers can both be true at the same time, and a careful dentist treats them accordingly.

The Objection: Proven Systems Already Work

This is the strongest objection, and it deserves a real answer.

Traditional implant systems have decades of clinical history. Their restorative components are familiar to dentists, laboratories, and teams. Referral relationships are built around them. Prosthetic troubleshooting is well understood. A dentist who’s getting predictable results shouldn’t abandon a proven workflow simply because something newer exists.

The burden belongs to the new system. It has to show that removing the abutment creates enough clinical or operating value to justify learning a different restorative pathway. It has to stay serviceable. Laboratory access has to be practical. Digital files have to move reliably. Components have to be available when the practice needs them. Most importantly, the clinical outcomes have to keep holding up as the follow-up period gets longer.

I wouldn’t frame this as old versus new. I’d frame it as an evidence and workflow decision, and evidence and workflow decisions deserve the same scrutiny no matter which side of the argument they land on.

Where Does the Workflow Get Interesting?

TRI has kept building digital applications around the matrix® connection. Current company materials describe ten integrated digital apps. Scan & Smile is designed to support a chairside provisional restoration directly on the implant in about fifteen minutes within a validated workflow. The digital healing collar library includes 48 patient-specific designs based on biological tooth shapes.

Those are company capabilities, not promises that every office will reproduce the same time or result on every case. The practical point matters more than the number of apps.

A digitally designed implant connection becomes more valuable when scanning, design, provisionalization, laboratory manufacturing, and final restoration can all work around the same restorative premise. The value isn’t another feature. It’s reducing the number of conversions between systems. I wrote about a similar operating problem in Blog No. 60, “Your Practice Isn’t Broken.” A practice can own several good tools and still create unnecessary work at the handoffs. Implant dentistry is no different. Every additional interface needs a reason to exist.

Hypothetical Example: Two Ways to Restore the Same Case

Imagine a straightforward posterior single-tooth implant case with favorable anatomy and a clinician who’s already comfortable with a digital workflow.

In the conventional pathway, the practice places the implant, scans or impresses the case, selects or designs an abutment or Ti-base solution, coordinates the restorative components, and delivers the final restoration. It’s a familiar workflow and can be highly predictable.

In an abutment-free digital pathway, the restorative design gets created directly for the implant connection. A provisional or final restoration can be designed through the digital workflow without introducing the conventional abutment layer, depending on the case and the practice’s equipment.

The second pathway isn’t automatically better because it has fewer pieces. It’s better only if the dentist can achieve the same or better clinical predictability with less unnecessary complexity. That’s the standard I’d use.

What’s the Economic Question, Without the Sales Math?

I’m not going to hand you component-cost estimates or projected per-case savings here. Implant costs vary too much by supplier agreement, laboratory, restorative material, geography, and the equipment already inside your practice for a universal number to mean much, and I don’t have a verified source for one specific enough to print.

The economic question is still legitimate, though. A separate abutment or Ti-base has a cost. Additional components create inventory. More appointments use chair time. Laboratory coordination has a cost. Remakes have a cost. A workflow that safely removes one or more of those steps can improve margin even if the exact dollar amount looks different in every office.

The mistake is assuming fewer components automatically means more profit. A practice may need new training, validated printing or milling, different laboratory support, or additional digital equipment. Early adoption can create its own learning curve. A system that looks less expensive on a component list can become more expensive if the team struggles to execute it consistently.

That’s why I’d measure the whole workflow rather than compare implant prices. Track clinical time, laboratory cost, component inventory, remakes, restorative visits, and the staff time required to coordinate the case. Then compare the two pathways over enough cases to see what actually changed. The value of a simpler restorative concept should show up in the practice, not only in a brochure.

Why Does the Company Behind the System Matter?

TRI was founded by Tobias Richter in 2011. Before TRI, Richter worked at Straumann, where he helped launch innovations including SLActive. He then co-founded Implant Direct Europe and built the business across 25 markets before the global business was sold to the Danaher Group. I confirmed that history through an independent industry source rather than taking TRI’s own leadership bio at face value, and it checks out.

That history doesn’t prove matrix® is the future of implant dentistry. It does explain why the system wasn’t built by people unfamiliar with the incumbent model.

The company has also added outside validation around its commercial development. Glidewell announced a partnership with TRI in April 2025 to serve as a validated milling partner for matrix® restorative cases, confirmed independently through Glidewell’s own announcement. In September 2025, Geistlich Pharma acquired a minority stake in TRI, a deal confirmed independently through two separate industry reports. Those relationships matter because adoption in implant dentistry depends on more than a clever connection. Dentists need restorative support, laboratory access, manufacturing consistency, education, and a company capable of supporting the system over time.

What Would I Evaluate Before Changing a Workflow?

I wouldn’t begin with the marketing claim that abutments are finished. I’d begin with the cases you actually treat.

How many implants do you restore each year? Which indications are straightforward and which aren’t? How dependent is your current process on stock components? Where do remakes or delays actually occur? Does your laboratory already support the workflow? Do you have the scanning and manufacturing capability to use the system as intended, or would you depend on an outside partner?

Then look at the evidence. Read the FDA clearances yourself rather than trusting a summary. Review the published and post-market studies. Understand which claims come from independent research and which come from the manufacturer. Ask what happens if a restoration fractures five years later. Ask how retrievability works. Ask whether the digital files remain usable outside one vendor relationship. Those aren’t reasons to reject a new system. They’re the questions that separate clinical adoption from product enthusiasm.

What Has Actually Changed?

The implant industry hasn’t changed because one company released another implant. It’s changed because an FDA-cleared restorative pathway now exists in which the definitive restoration can be manufactured directly for the implant connection without a conventional abutment. The supporting digital tools, laboratory relationships, and clinical follow-up are becoming substantial enough that the idea can no longer get dismissed as a prototype.

That still leaves plenty to learn. Longer follow-up matters. Independent clinical evidence matters. Training matters. The economics will vary by practice, laboratory, equipment, and treatment mix.

But the restorative assumption is now open for debate. For decades, the implant-abutment-restoration sequence got treated as the natural order of things. Digital manufacturing has made it reasonable to ask whether that middle component should stay automatic.

I don’t think every dentist should change implant systems tomorrow. I do think every implant dentist should understand why the question has changed.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the TRI matrix® implant system?

The matrix® system is a dental implant platform designed for direct digital restorative manufacturing. Its FDA-cleared restorative pathway allows a patient-specific CAD/CAM restoration to connect directly to the implant without a conventional separate abutment.

Is the TRI matrix® system FDA cleared?

Yes. The TRI-matrix® Implant Line received FDA 510(k) clearance under K203660 in December 2021. The matrix® X-Force implant received clearance under K242661 in January 2025. Both dates are independently confirmed against FDA records.

What does abutment-free mean in implant dentistry?

It means the restoration is designed to connect directly to the implant rather than relying on a separate conventional abutment or Ti-base between the implant and restoration.

Does abutment-free mean there’s no biological or prosthetic risk?

No. Removing the conventional abutment can simplify the restorative pathway and avoid cement-related issues in that specific pathway, but it doesn’t eliminate peri-implant disease, mechanical complications, case-selection risk, or the need for proper training.

How strong is the current clinical evidence?

TRI currently reports 4.5-year post-market follow-up data on 2,334 matrix® implants, with a 99.3% success rate and 100% osseointegration. That’s company-reported data, not an independently published study, so treat it as encouraging rather than conclusive. The system doesn’t yet have the multi-decade follow-up available for older implant platforms.

Does switching to an abutment-free workflow require new equipment?

It depends on what your practice already has. A validated workflow needs reliable scanning, CAD/CAM design access, and either in-house milling or 3D printing capability or a laboratory partner who already supports the system. That’s a real consideration, not a footnote, before changing how you restore implant cases.

Should every practice move to an abutment-free system?

No, and nothing here should be read that way. The right question is narrower: for the cases you actually treat, does removing the abutment create enough clinical or operating value to justify learning a different restorative pathway. For some practices and case types, the answer will be yes. For others, a proven conventional workflow is still the right call.

About the Author

Dr. Jim Arnold, DDS is the Founder and CEO of Foundation Dental Alliance, a leadership and practice development organization serving dentists from graduation through retirement. He has 30 years of experience as a multi-practice owner and has been involved in more than 60 dental practice transitions. He leads the Foundation Dental Mastermind, Luxury Dental Retreats, co-founded Foundation Dental Transitions, and hosts the Foundation Dental Podcast. He also publishes the Foundation Dental Newsletter and Blog weekly, focused on leadership, practice design, and long-term sustainability in dentistry.

Stay Connected

Websites

FoundationDentalAlliance.com

FoundationDentalMastermind.com

FoundationDentalTransitions.com

FoundationDentalNetwork.com

LuxuryDentalRetreats.com/dubai

Social Media

LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/arnoldjim

Instagram: instagram.com/smilesbyarnold

YouTube: youtube.com/@DrJimArnold

Facebook: facebook.com/smilesbyarnold

Twitter/X: twitter.com/smilesbyarnold

Publications

Foundation Dental Newsletter: linkedin.com/newsletters/foundation-dental-newsletter

Contact

Professional Email: drarnold@foundationdentalalliance.com