A Dentist's Quest for a Better Implant

Leo Malin, DDS, discusses how clinical challenges inspired him to develop his own implant system and why education remains central to his approach to innovation with Implant Logistics.

By
Lou Shuman
October 13, 2026

Inside Dentistry

Overview

Leo Malin, DDS, describes how clinical observations of bone loss around implants led him to focus on the implant–abutment connection and develop the Implant One system. He identifies abutment orientation and connection strength for molar restorations as design priorities, and recounts the system’s development alongside his work in guided surgery, mobile CBCT, and clinician education.

Background

Dental implant treatment involves more than achieving osseointegration; the related article on esthetic implant placement notes that patients also require functional and esthetic restorations. Malin says that, after focusing on implant dentistry, he observed bone loss around implants and considered its causes multifactorial, with the abutment connection an important factor. He describes design limitations in an earlier implant connection, including unrestricted abutment orientation and insufficient titanium in the connection for larger molar teeth. Related consensus material addresses implant number, placement and loading timing, and prosthesis selection for rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla.

Data Highlights

The interview provides no numerical clinical outcome data or comparative trial results. Malin reports that he started Implant Logistics in 2009 after researching implant design and developing a prototype, and that he used two CBCT machines on mobile trucks to provide imaging in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Key Findings

Malin reports that he observed bone loss around implants during his clinical work and regarded its causes as multifactorial, while identifying the implant–abutment connection as an important consideration.
He says the earlier tapered connection he studied allowed the abutment to be placed in 360 orientations, which he considered a challenge for the US market.
He also sought a bulkier connection for molar teeth, explaining that the earlier connection geometry did not provide enough titanium and could create a fracture issue.
Malin says he and an engineer researched implant design for several years and developed a prototype, including testing its biocompatibility and other factors before market introduction.
He describes Implant One as usable with analog or digitally driven workflows and says the system includes components for analog restorations.
The related article on implant dentistry states that treatment success is not limited to osseointegration and that esthetic as well as functional outcomes are required.

Clinical Implications

The interview presents abutment orientation and connection geometry as design considerations raised by Malin’s clinical experience, particularly for molar restorations. It also describes analog and digital workflows and clinician training as features of the system; the source does not provide comparative clinical outcome data establishing superiority over other implant systems.

Conclusion

Malin’s account links clinical observations about bone loss and connection design to the development of Implant One and to his ongoing emphasis on technology and education. The interview describes the design rationale and intended workflow flexibility but does not report clinical trial results.