Skip to content

SuperLine FX7012SWCRecalls & reported problems

Dentium USA · Endosseous dental implant · Class 2 · Implant

All models of SuperLine (22)

Data updated Oct 16, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy

Adverse event reports
4
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
4
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 4 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI D755FX7012SWC0), received between Aug 30, 2018 and Nov 11, 2021 — classified as 4 injuries.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Failure to Osseointegrate” (3 reports).

Reports come from manufacturers, hospitals and patients and are not verified by the FDA. A report does not prove the device caused the event, and counts can't be used to compare devices or estimate failure rates. What reports can and can't tell you · How this data works · Data updated Oct 16, 2026.

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Failure to Osseointegrate3
  • Osseointegration Problem2
  • Loss of Osseointegration1

Patient problems

  • Inadequate Osseointegration4
  • Failure of Implant2
  • Unspecified Infection2

Recent adverse event reports

The 4 most recent of 4 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • InjuryNov 11, 2021Loss of Osseointegration; Loss of Osseointegration

    THE DOCTOR REPORTED THE IMPLANT WAS REMOVED DUE TO LOSS OF OSSEOINTEGRATION APPROXIMATELY 3 YEARS - 5 MONTHS AFTER IMPLANT PLACEMENT. BONE QUALITY AROUND THE AREA WAS TYPE II, AND ORAL HYGIENE AROUND THE IMPLANT WAS POOR. THE DOCTOR REPORTED BONE RESORPTION WAS OBSERVED DURING THE IMPLANT PLACEMENT SURGERY. THE PATIENT HAS SINCE RECOVERED.

    Patient problems: Failure of Implant; Inadequate Osseointegration

    MAUDE report 12801315 ↗
  • InjuryJun 29, 2021Failure to Osseointegrate; Failure to Osseointegrate

    THE DOCTOR REPORTED THAT THE IMPLANT WAS REMOVED DUE TO OSSEOINTEGRATION FAILURE APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS AFTER INITIAL IMPLANT PLACEMENT. BONE QUALITY AROUND THE AREA WAS BETWEEN TYPE 2 AND TYPE 3, AND ORAL HYGIENE AROUND THE IMPLANT WAS GOOD. PATIENT REQUIRED A SECOND SURGICAL INTERVENTION.

    Patient problems: Failure of Implant; Inadequate Osseointegration

    MAUDE report 12089711 ↗
  • InjuryMay 20, 2019Failure to Osseointegrate; Osseointegration Problem; Failure to Osseointegrate; Osseointegration Problem

    THE DENTAL IMPLANT FX7012SWC WAS REMOVED ON (B)(6) 2017 DUE TO FAILURE TO OSSEOINTEGRATE 5 MONTHS AND 2 DAYS AFTER IMPLANTATION. THE PATIENT HAS NO SIGNIFICANT MEDICAL HISTORY. THE DOCTOR NOTED LOCAL INFECTION AND PAIN DURING EXPLANTATION. THE PATIENT REQUIRED BONE AUGMENTATION FOR THE OPERATION. THE PATIENT HAS RECOVERED WITHOUT COMPLICATIONS.

    Patient problems: Inadequate Osseointegration; Unspecified Infection

    MAUDE report 8625090 ↗
  • InjuryAug 30, 2018Failure to Osseointegrate; Osseointegration Problem; Failure to Osseointegrate; Osseointegration Problem

    THE DENTAL IMPLANT FX7012SWC WAS REMOVED ON (B)(6) 2018 DUE TO FAILURE TO OSSEOINTEGRATE 6 MONTHS. THE DOCTOR NOTED LOCAL INFECTION AND A REPORTED NUMBNESS/ABNORMAL SENSATION DURING SURGERY. THE PATIENT HAS NO SIGNIFICANT MEDICAL HISTORY. THE PATIENT HAS RECOVERED WITHOUT COMPLICATIONS.

    Patient problems: Inadequate Osseointegration; Unspecified Infection

    MAUDE report 7833135 ↗

Other IMPLANT, ENDOSSEOUS, ROOT-FORM devices

All IMPLANT, ENDOSSEOUS, ROOT-FORM devices →

Sources and updates

How reports and recalls are matched · Editorial policy · Report an error on this page