Many patients and healthcare professionals are evaluating the quality and availability of dental treatment amid sanctions that reduced access to several popular foreign materials. In Russia, several companies have long pursued import substitution for dental materials. Experts differ: some domestic options measure up to foreign standards, while others still lag behind.
What has replacement looked like so far?
According to Associate Professor Zurab Khabadze, Deputy Director of the RUDN Medical Institute and Head of the Department of Therapeutic Dentistry, Russia is actively advancing the field of dental implantation today. Native implants, processing methods, and coatings are expanding, with aims to maximize future osseointegration.
He notes that the titanium used in these implants is of high quality. It is possible that domestic analogues will soon compete with foreign advanced implants. Prosthetic materials from dental laboratories, including high-quality zirconium dioxide, are also accessible, he adds.
Research at RUDN has compared Russian fiberglass pins with foreign counterparts, yielding optimistic results for domestic options.
Composite materials face a similar assessment. A Russian graduate student compared the toxicity of Italian, American, and domestic dental composites. The findings indicate that domestic materials are not inferior to foreign ones and are safe for long‑term use when applied correctly, Khabadze explains.
Denis Anokhin, a senior researcher at the NUST MISIS Laboratory of Structural and Thermal Methods for Materials Research, highlights multiple advances in materials for orthodontics in Russia.
His team has developed a biodegradable “smart” material with controlled stiffness for arches, ligatures, and aligners. The proposal is to make the orthodontic system polymer-based. This would address several issues. Many existing orthodontic materials are metal or metal‑ceramic, and metal’s hardness does not adapt over time, necessitating periodic tightening to adjust the bite. The polymer system could reduce the frequency of visits for bite corrections, Anokhin says.
Initially, the arch is soft, allowing easy placement, then it gradually hardens to secure the teeth. This rigidity can be adjusted over time, potentially changing two to three times within a few months.
Second, the material is biocompatible and does not disrupt the oral microflora, enabling lengthy use without harming patients. It can also serve as a coating on metal orthodontic devices to reduce adverse effects on the body and protect tooth enamel. Being polymer-based, it offers a lower cost compared with metals. The expectation is faster bite correction with fewer complications in this system as well, he notes.
There are currently no similar polymer-based products in Russia, and international research is at the prototype stage. This year, scientists plan to produce the first prototypes for testing by experts at Volga Research Medical University, with market introduction anticipated within three to five years.
Maxillofacial and plastic surgery specialists at the Scientific Center No. 2 of the Russian Scientific Surgery Center note that there are no major import substitution obstacles in maxillofacial surgery. They highlight that metal structures and miniplates for bone grafting are competitive with foreign analogues and, in some cases, offer advantages. Local materials are used alongside products developed in collaboration with national metallurgy institutes. A gene-activated bone grafting material developed with support from a local institute is described as a novel approach in this field.
The material includes a pharmaceutically active component on its surface intended to stimulate bone regeneration. Plasmid DNA molecules carrying a vascular endothelial growth factor gene enter cells after implantation, temporarily boosting the production of a therapeutic protein and enhancing blood vessel formation in the regeneration zone, leading to improved bone restoration.
Officials note that no other products on the Russian market contain similar pharmaceutically active ingredients, while foreign counterparts exist without gene structures like these. The new product is described as the first to receive clinical use approval worldwide.
Dental professionals consulted by socialbites.ca emphasize that the production of small dental instruments has expanded in Russia, with components such as burs, root canal tools, and implants meeting high standards comparable to international benchmarks. While authority and trust in a material manufacturer matter, continued access to foreign‑made options remains a practical reality for many practitioners.
Basic materials
The leading challenge identified by Khabadze from RUDN is ensuring high-quality anesthesia for the industry. Domestic alternatives, he says, still cannot match foreign options.
Preservatives added to anesthetics extend shelf life but can trigger serious allergic reactions. When a carpule is used, the effect is often short-term, and in some cases a second or third carpule becomes necessary. This raises concerns about potential toxic reactions and overall patient safety, he explains.
Another clinician notes that issues may lie not with the drugs themselves but with their transport and storage conditions.
According to Khabadze, while the composition of domestic anesthetics aligns with foreign products, improper handling or storage can reduce effectiveness. Local products are used at times, but quality remains inconsistent, and some plastics used in dentistry can be highly allergenic and cause adverse reactions.
Gutta-percha spots used to seal root canals are another area where replacement proves difficult. This material is derived from gutta-percha trees that do not grow in Russia. While pastes can replace some functions, they may dissolve and prompt chronic inflammation. Silver pins and certain plasticizers also pose replacement challenges. Tricalcium silicate cements are used but complex to remove when addressing root canals. Gutta-percha is still considered irreplaceable, with hope pinned on continued foreign supply.
Russia has yet to achieve parity in producing X-ray devices and computed tomography systems for dental use. Expert assessments indicate that current Russian equipment and software do not fully satisfy professional needs.
Orthopedists and implant surgeons also observe that cone-beam CT devices are primarily produced in Germany, the United States, Finland, and South Korea. These nations also lead in advanced imaging technologies that prioritize accuracy and patient safety through lower radiation exposure. The absence of sophisticated domestic dental equipment is apparent, including high-tech masses used in measuring crowns and bridges. Experts note that foreign providers have long dominated the development of these materials in Russia.
Digital technologies have become standard in dental laboratories, with intraoral scanners widely used. Current best models are produced by international manufacturers, and local production of these devices is not planned. Bonding and adhesive systems, though improvable with Russian analogues, still rely on high-tech tools for optimal channel processing.
What do Russian dentists prefer?
When asked about material use, most interlocutors report a predominance of foreign products, even where high-quality Russian analogues exist.
The prevailing view emphasizes the importance of the long-standing trust and reputation of material manufacturers. As long as foreign options remain accessible, many practitioners will continue to rely on them, Khabadze concludes.