Sterile, sealed boxesProduct record
A synthetic bone graft plug sold by ZimVie Dental: 80% carbonate apatite granules held in 20% Type I bovine collagen, placed dry, in 6 × 25 mm and 10 × 20 mm sizes, five per box. The FDA device registry lists Collagen Matrix, Inc. as the company of record. One naming caution matters here: the RegenerOss brand also covers an allograft particulate line, and this plug is not allograft.
Specifications
Composition and sizes are as published by ZimVie; the manufacturer of record comes from the FDA UDI device registration, read on the verification date. Membrane guidance is not stated on the product page, which is itself worth knowing.
Against the rest of the category
Differences of fact, taken from published specifications and regulatory records. None is a claim that this product performs better or worse than any other.
RegenerOss CC is an allograft particulate; the RegenerOss Bone Graft Plug on this page is a synthetic carbonate apatite. A clinician who knows the brand from its allograft line and assumes the plug matches will order the wrong material class. Nothing on the box name distinguishes them, so the composition line has to do the work.
The FDA UDI database lists Collagen Matrix, Inc. as the company of record for this plug and for REGENAFILL, the Straumann SocketPlug, PreservaRidge and the Gibson Healthcare plug. Four of the five publish the same 80/20 composition and the same two sizes. The registration establishes who makes them; it does not state that they are the identical formulation, and we do not claim that. It does mean brand-level price differences in this group deserve scrutiny that none of the gated price lists makes possible.
ZimVie states a full-resorption window of 9 to 12 months and a typical implant timing of 6 months post-grafting. Most plugs in our database publish neither. Both figures are the manufacturer’s claims and are quoted below with that label; publishing them at all is a transparency point in ZimVie’s favor.
In the manufacturer's words
Quoted rather than paraphrased, so the claim can be checked against its source.
Full resorption in 9 to 12 months.
ZimVie, RegenerOss Bone Graft Plug product page
Our note A manufacturer figure, not an outcome to expect. Human histology of comparable synthetic mineral classes finds residual graft particles at the five-to-six month mark, and resorption beyond that varies with the site and the patient.
Implant placement typically 6 months post-grafting.
ZimVie, RegenerOss Bone Graft Plug product page
Our note More conservative than most of the category, which is worth noticing. It is still a general figure: bone readiness needs confirming clinically and radiographically for the specific site before an implant goes in.
The collagen holds the graft particles in place as the plug adapts to the defect.
ZimVie, RegenerOss Bone Graft Plug product page
Our note This is the plug format’s real, defensible advantage over loose particulate: containment and handling. Note what ZimVie does not say: the page makes no membrane claim in either direction, which is more restrained than several competitors.
We quote these because a clinician comparing products should see each claim as it was made. Quoting is not endorsing: where we would attach a condition, the note under the quote says which one, and we hold our own products to the same standard.
Clinical evidence
Evidence for the procedure is not evidence for a material class, and neither is evidence for a specific product. These are kept apart on purpose.
Evidence about the procedure
A meta-analysis comparing ridge preservation with unassisted healing reported roughly 1.3–1.5 mm less bucco-oral width loss and 0.9–1.1 mm less height loss in grafted sites, with implants placed as planned without further augmentation at 90.1% of grafted sites against 79.2% of untreated ones. Evidence about grafting a socket, not about this product.
Evidence about the material classes
Reviews of ridge preservation have not established any material class as clinically superior for hard-tissue outcomes. Human histology reports roughly 26% residual graft material at around five months for a synthetic calcium phosphate blend. That is how an osteoconductive scaffold works, and it is the context for any full-resorption claim in this category, including the one quoted above.
Evidence about this specific product
We identified no published independent clinical trials on the RegenerOss Bone Graft Plug specifically. What exists is ZimVie’s product documentation and surgical technique material. The same is true of nearly every plug in this category, including both of ours, and we say so on their pages too.
Evidence about the procedure and about a material class is not evidence about a product. The three tiers above are kept apart for that reason.
State of the record
Comparable products
Grouped by what each one shares with the product above, not by preference.
The other long-established synthetic plug, with a genuinely different chemistry: a non-ceramic calcium apatite its manufacturer states is not carbonate apatite, not β-TCP and not ceramic hydroxyapatite. Radiolucent at placement, unlike this product’s class.
Straumann SocketPlug, REGENAFILL, PreservaRidge, Gibson Healthcare plug
The four other brands whose FDA UDI registrations name the same manufacturer of record. Published specifications match this product’s; published prices do not exist for any of them.
MinerOss X Plug
Same 80/20 plug construction with a bovine cancellous mineral instead of a synthetic. The choice between them is the synthetic-versus-xenograft choice, not a format choice.
A collagenated block rather than a plug: 90% bovine bone mineral, 10% porcine collagen, cut to fit. The most independently studied product in the database.
SpongeGraft We supply this
Plug format with a β-TCP and hydroxyapatite mineral phase on a bovine Type I collagen carrier, 10 × 20 mm, five per box, with the price published.
Sponge ZenGraft We supply this
The same plug format and carrier with deproteinized bovine bone mineral, for cases where slow resorption and long-term volume maintenance are the priority.
Listed because each shares something specific with the product on this page, not because any of them is better. Published reviews have not established that any material class is clinically superior for hard-tissue outcomes. Two of these are ours and are marked.
Last verified 2026-08-21. Manufacturers change formulations, packaging and published claims without notice. Every value on this page was read from the source listed against it on that date, and confirming current specifications against the instructions for use in the box remains the clinician's call.
Professional use. This page is product information for licensed dental professionals, compiled from the brand owner’s published material and FDA device registration records. It is not clinical advice, and it is not a substitute for the manufacturer’s instructions for use. Implanex does not sell this product. Product names and trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Comparing plug-format options with a synthetic or bovine mineral? see what we supply, with prices published
Common questions
ZimVie publishes it as 80% carbonate apatite granules and 20% Type I bovine collagen. The mineral is synthetic. It is not an allograft, despite the RegenerOss brand also covering an allograft particulate line.
No. The plug is a synthetic carbonate apatite in a bovine collagen carrier. RegenerOss CC, a separate product under the same brand, is an allograft particulate. The shared name is the single most common confusion about this product.
The FDA UDI device registration lists Collagen Matrix, Inc. as the company of record, with ZimVie as the brand owner. The same company is the registrant for four other plug brands with matching published specifications.
ZimVie states typically 6 months post-grafting, with full resorption at 9 to 12 months. Those are the manufacturer’s figures, not outcomes to expect: bone readiness depends on the site and the patient and needs confirming clinically and radiographically.
ZimVie’s product page makes no membrane claim in either direction. Our general position, applied to our own products too: in an intact, contained socket a plug can reasonably be placed without a separate membrane, while a deficient wall or non-contained defect calls for a barrier membrane and standard guided bone regeneration principles.
