Sterile, sealed boxesHead to head
Two synthetic mineral-collagen plugs with different chemistries: OsteoGen (Impladent) is a non-ceramic calcium apatite, SpongeGraft carries a 60% β-tricalcium phosphate and 40% hydroxyapatite blend. Both use a bovine Type I collagen carrier. We supply SpongeGraft, so read this page knowing that, and check every row against the sources: no published evidence separates these products on clinical outcomes, and this page does not claim otherwise.
The difference
One column is a product we supply. Both columns are held to the same standard, and every cell is checkable against the sources below.
| Attribute | OsteoGen Plug | SpongeGraft |
|---|---|---|
| Mineral | Non-ceramic bioactive calcium apatite; the manufacturer states it is not β-TCP, not ceramic hydroxyapatite, and not a biphasic mixture | 60% β-tricalcium phosphate / 40% hydroxyapatite, a biphasic blend |
| Collagen carrier | Type I bovine Achilles tendon; percentage not published | Type I bovine tendon; percentage not published |
| Brand owner | Impladent Ltd., which also manufactures it | Implanex (distributor); the manufacturer is not disclosed by the distributor |
| Sizes | 6 × 25 mm, 10 × 20 mm, 15 × 20 mm | 10 × 20 mm |
| Per box | 5 or 10, by size and distributor | 5, each in its own sterile double blister |
| Placement | Delivered dry into the socket; takes up blood | Placed dry into the bleeding socket; absorbs blood on contact, no rehydration or chairside mixing |
| Radiographic appearance at placement | Radiolucent, becoming radiopaque as it mineralizes, per the manufacturer | Not published |
| Resorption, as published | The manufacturer publishes two figures across its own channels: 3 to 6 months and 4 to 6 months | No completion timeline published; the more soluble β-TCP fraction and slower hydroxyapatite give a staged profile |
| Membrane, as published | The manufacturer states no membrane is needed and describes compacting the plug to form one | Conditional: in intact, contained sockets, one-step placement without a separate membrane; otherwise a barrier membrane and standard GBR principles apply |
| Public US price | Not consistently published | $219 per box of 5 ($43.80 per plug), published |
Every row is what each product’s published material states, held to the same standard in both columns. Where either side publishes nothing, the cell says so instead of guessing, and that includes ours.
Reading the table
A β-TCP/HA blend and a non-ceramic calcium apatite are different materials with different dissolution behavior. What no published study establishes is that either produces better hard-tissue outcomes in a socket: reviews have not crowned any material class, and no trial compares these two products. If a page tells you one of these plugs grows better bone, it is selling, not citing. This page will not do that, in either direction.
OsteoGen offers three sizes where SpongeGraft offers one, which matters for narrow anterior sockets and oversized molar sites. SpongeGraft publishes its price where OsteoGen’s varies by distributor and mostly sits behind trade logins. Which of those weighs more depends on the practice, and that is a purchasing judgment, not a clinical one.
Impladent’s claim is unconditional: no membrane needed. Ours is conditional on the socket being intact and contained, because a deficient wall or non-contained defect calls for a barrier membrane and standard guided bone regeneration principles regardless of which plug is in the site. We hold competitors’ unconditional claims and our own marketing to the same rule: the condition travels with the claim.
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
Ridge preservation against unassisted healing shows roughly 1.3–1.5 mm less bucco-oral width loss and 0.9–1.1 mm less height loss, with implants placed as planned at 90.1% of grafted against 79.2% of ungrafted sites. That is evidence for grafting sockets. It is not evidence for either column of the table above.
Evidence about the material classes
Human histology of a β-TCP/HA ridge-preservation graft reports roughly 26% residual graft material and 21% new bone at around five months. Osteoconductive scaffolds are grown along, not consumed on schedule, and reviews have not established any class, or any chemistry within the synthetic class, as clinically superior for hard-tissue outcomes.
Evidence about these specific products
No published trial compares these products, and neither has published randomized controlled trials of its own that we are aware of. OsteoGen has one registered comparative trial against a different arm, with results we have not been able to read. SpongeGraft has manufacturer-published case documentation and clinician evaluations, which we will send on request and which are not the same class of evidence as the reviews above.
Evidence for the procedure and the material classes is not evidence for either product. The third tier is thin for both products on this page, including the one we sell.
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. Implanex supplies SpongeGraft and does not sell the OsteoGen Plug; both columns are compiled from published material and held to the same standard. It is not clinical advice and not a substitute for either manufacturer’s instructions for use. Product names and trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
If SpongeGraft fits the case, view SpongeGraft bundle pricing
Common questions
No published evidence says either product is better. No trial compares them, and reviews of ridge preservation have not established any material class as clinically superior for hard-tissue outcomes. We supply SpongeGraft and we still will not make that claim. The documented differences are chemistry, size range, membrane-claim wording, and price transparency.
SpongeGraft’s mineral is a biphasic blend of 60% β-tricalcium phosphate and 40% hydroxyapatite. Impladent states OsteoGen is neither: a non-ceramic bioactive calcium apatite that is not β-TCP, not ceramic hydroxyapatite, and not a biphasic mixture. Both are synthetic; the chemistries and their dissolution behavior differ.
Yes. Both carriers are Type I bovine collagen, so neither product is free of animal-derived material even though both mineral phases are synthetic. We state that about our own product wherever the word synthetic appears.
SpongeGraft’s list price is published on our pages. OsteoGen pricing varies by distributor and most listings sit behind trade logins, which is the norm in this category. A published price is a purchasing convenience, not a clinical argument.
