Skip to content

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

↑ ↓ to navigate · ↵ to open

MIS V3 vs C1

Quick answer

V3 and C1 share the same 12 degree friction-fit conical connection and prosthetic range, so they can be mixed within a case and restored with identical components. The difference is the shape of the implant at the crest: V3 is triangular in cross-section in its coronal third, C1 is round and root-shaped.

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 V3

MIS Implants Technologies Ltd.Manufacturer-reported[1]

MIS C1

MIS Implants Technologies Ltd.Manufacturer-reported[2]

Implant level

MIS V3

Bone levelManufacturer-reported[1]

MIS C1

Bone levelManufacturer-reported[2]

Body geometry

MIS V3

Triangular-shaped coronal neck, which MIS states is intended to create gaps around the implant neck for blood pooling and clot formationManufacturer-reported[1]

MIS C1

Conical, root-shaped geometry with micro-rings on the implant neckManufacturer-reported[2]

Material

MIS V3

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

MIS C1

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

Surface

MIS V3

Sandblasted and acid-etchedManufacturer-reported[1]

MIS C1

Sandblasted and acid-etchedManufacturer-reported[2]

Connection

MIS V3

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

MIS C1

12-degree friction-fit conical connectionManufacturer-reported[2]

Platform switching

MIS V3

Platform-switched designManufacturer-reported[1]

MIS C1

Platform-switching designManufacturer-reported[2]

Available diameters

MIS V3

Ø3.30 mm on the narrow platform; Ø3.90, Ø4.30 and Ø5.00 mm on the standard platformManufacturer-reported[1]

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[2]

Available lengths

MIS V3

Ø3.30 in 10, 11.5, 13 and 16 mm; Ø3.90, Ø4.30 and Ø5.00 in 8, 10, 11.5, 13 and 16 mmManufacturer-reported[1]

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[2]

Immediate protocol

MIS V3

Maximum placement torque of 45 Ncm at Ø3.30 and 60 Ncm at Ø3.90Manufacturer-reported[1]

MIS C1

Not publicly verified

Prosthetic ecosystem

MIS V3

Shares the MIS conical connection prosthetic range with C1; each package includes a sterile single-use final drillManufacturer-reported[1]

MIS C1

Shares the MIS conical connection prosthetic range with V3; supplied with single-use XD drillsManufacturer-reported[2]

The biggest differences

V3's triangular coronal neck leaves three small voids between implant and bone when it is seated, which MIS states are intended to fill with blood and then bone, reducing compression at the crest. C1 is a conventional conical, root-shaped implant with micro-rings on the neck. Whether the triangular geometry produces a measurable clinical difference is a separate question from whether the geometry exists — it demonstrably does, and it is unusual.

Design

The diameter grids differ slightly. V3 is offered at 3.30 mm on the narrow platform and 3.90, 4.30 and 5.00 mm on the standard platform. C1 is offered at 3.30 mm narrow, 3.75 and 4.20 mm standard and 5.00 mm on a wide platform. Lengths are the same on both: 10 to 16 mm at 3.30 mm and 8 to 16 mm above it. Both are made from Ti-6Al-4V ELI with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface.

Prosthetic ecosystem

Both use the MIS 12 degree friction-fit conical connection with a platform-switched design and share the same prosthetic range. Both are supplied with a sterile single-use final drill in the package. This matters more than it sounds: MIS also runs an entirely separate internal hexagon platform used by SEVEN and M4, and components do not cross between the two families.

What may influence clinical selection

MIS specifies maximum placement torque for V3 at 45 Ncm on the 3.30 mm implant and 60 Ncm on the 3.90 mm, which is a reminder that the triangular neck is a structural feature as well as a biological argument. C1 is the conventional option and the one most surgeons will have placed more of. Since the two are restoratively identical, a practice can choose per site without complicating its component stock.

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