Skip to content

Start typing to search 200+ implant systems, brands, manufacturers and technologies.

↑ ↓ to navigate · ↵ to open

MIS C1 vs SEVEN

Quick answer

These two belong to different MIS platforms: C1 uses the 12 degree friction-fit conical connection and SEVEN uses the internal hexagon. Components do not cross between them, which makes this the more consequential MIS comparison — it is a choice of prosthetic ecosystem, not just of implant body.

Side by side

Rows appear only where at least one side has data. Where a value is not verified we say so rather than leaving it blank.

Manufacturer

MIS C1

MIS Implants Technologies Ltd.Manufacturer-reported[1]

MIS SEVEN

MIS Implants Technologies Ltd.Manufacturer-reported[2]

Implant level

MIS C1

Bone levelManufacturer-reported[1]

MIS SEVEN

Bone levelManufacturer-reported[2]

Body geometry

MIS C1

Conical, root-shaped geometry with micro-rings on the implant neckManufacturer-reported[1]

MIS SEVEN

Root-shaped geometry with micro-rings on the neck of the implantManufacturer-reported[2]

Material

MIS C1

Titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V ELIManufacturer-reported[1]

MIS SEVEN

Titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V ELIManufacturer-reported[2]

Surface

MIS C1

Sandblasted and acid-etchedManufacturer-reported[1]

MIS SEVEN

Sandblasted and acid-etchedManufacturer-reported[2]

Connection

MIS C1

12-degree friction-fit conical connectionManufacturer-reported[1]

MIS SEVEN

Internal hexagon, shared with the M4 implant across narrow, standard and wide platformsManufacturer-reported[2][3]

Platform switching

MIS C1

Platform-switching designManufacturer-reported[1]

MIS SEVEN

Manufacturer documentation not located

Available diameters

MIS C1

Ø3.30 mm on the narrow platform; Ø3.75 and Ø4.20 mm on the standard platform; Ø5.00 mm on the wide platformManufacturer-reported[1]

MIS SEVEN

Ø3.30, 3.75, 4.20, 5.00 and 6.00 mmManufacturer-reported[2]

Available lengths

MIS C1

Ø3.30 in 10, 11.5, 13 and 16 mm; Ø3.75, Ø4.20 and Ø5.00 in 8, 10, 11.5, 13 and 16 mmManufacturer-reported[1]

MIS SEVEN

Ø3.30 in 10, 11.5, 13 and 16 mm; Ø3.75 in 8, 10, 11.5, 13 and 16 mm; Ø4.20 and Ø5.00 in 6, 8, 10, 11.5, 13 and 16 mm; Ø6.00 in 6, 8, 10, 11.5 and 13 mmManufacturer-reported[2]

Prosthetic ecosystem

MIS C1

Shares the MIS conical connection prosthetic range with V3; supplied with single-use XD drillsManufacturer-reported[1]

MIS SEVEN

Not publicly verified

The biggest differences

C1 is a conical, root-shaped implant with a dual thread, micro-rings at the neck and a platform-switched conical connection. SEVEN is a root-shaped implant on the internal hexagon platform with a dome-shaped apex that MIS states prevents over-insertion — a safety feature rather than a stability one. Both are made from Ti-6Al-4V ELI with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface.

Design

SEVEN reaches wider, offering 6.00 mm — the widest fixture MIS lists on the internal hexagon platform — and 6 mm lengths at 4.20 and 5.00 mm diameters. C1 stops at 5.00 mm and 8 mm. If a short wide posterior implant is needed within MIS, SEVEN is the line that has it. We have recorded platform switching for C1 but not for SEVEN, because MIS does not state it for SEVEN in the material we reviewed.

Prosthetic ecosystem

The internal hexagon is the older of the two MIS families and is shared by SEVEN and M4. The 12 degree conical connection is shared by C1 and V3. Nothing crosses between the families. For anyone with an existing MIS implant needing restorative work, this is the fact to establish first, because the brand name and even the implant name will not tell a laboratory which family a component belongs to unless the family is recorded.

What may influence clinical selection

Practices generally settle on one MIS platform rather than running both, so in most cases the decision has already been made by the clinic's stock before a patient is involved. Where both are available, the conical connection with platform switching is the more recent design approach and the internal hexagon the more established one, and neither of those descriptions is a clinical verdict.

So which is better?

Neither is universally better, and any page telling you otherwise is selling something. These are different designs with different trade-offs, and the right choice depends on the bone available, the position in the mouth, the planned restoration, and what the treating clinician is equipped and experienced to place and to service years from now. That last point is easy to overlook and matters more than most specification differences: components need to remain obtainable for as long as the implant is in place.

Sources

Numbers match the citations beside each claim above.

Primary sources

Before you continue

Get a free implant assessment

You are about to start a WhatsApp conversation with Taki Dent, Dental Implants Guide’s disclosed clinical partner in Antalya, Turkey.

Taki Dent is Dental Implants Guide’s disclosed clinical partner in Antalya, Turkey. We may receive a commercial benefit when patients choose treatment with Taki Dent through this website. Your message and phone number are shared with Taki Dent so that they can reply to you. This is a preliminary assessment with no obligation — it is not a diagnosis, and individual suitability always depends on clinical examination. See our privacy policy.

Continue to WhatsApp Learn about Taki Dent