Ultra-short implants
Also known as: Extra-short implant, Ultrashort implant
Implants shorter than the usual short-implant threshold; the 11th European Consensus Conference describes ultra-short implants as those with lengths under 6 mm.
Research in progress. Some fields on this entry are not yet verified against a primary source, so we have left them blank rather than filling them in — and this page is not published to search engines until they are.
Key facts
| Defining threshold | "Ultra-short" implants are considered to be those with lengths less than 6 mm (11th European Consensus Conference, Cologne, 2016)Verified spec[1] |
|---|---|
| Terminology | Sources conflict(The neighbouring term "extra-short" is used elsewhere for a specific 4 mm length, so "ultra-short" and "extra-short" do not map onto one agreed range) |
| Clinical evidence | A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis of four mandibular trials found no significant difference in 12-month survival between 4 mm implants and implants longer than 8 mm (95.4% versus 95.0%), with lower marginal bone loss in the 4 mm groupClinical evidence |
| Limitations | The 2016 European Consensus Conference guideline states that for ultra-short implants there was insufficient evidence to make recommendations at that timeVerified spec[1] |
| Prosthetic ecosystem | In the trials that exist, ultra-short implants are generally splinted to one another rather than restored as isolated single units, so their reported performance should not be read across to a standalone crown. |
Overview
Ultra-short implants are the shortest fixtures in routine use — the European Consensus Conference draws the line under 6 mm — and they exist to make treatment possible in bone too shallow even for a conventional short implant. Terminology here is genuinely messy: some published work uses "extra-short" for a specific 4 mm implant, so the two labels overlap without agreeing, and a reader comparing two papers may not be comparing the same device. The clinical evidence is short-term and narrow: a 2021 meta-analysis of four mandibular trials found no significant difference in survival at twelve months against implants longer than 8 mm, but twelve months is not a durability claim, and in those trials the implants were splinted together rather than standing alone. In 2016 the European Consensus Conference declined to make a recommendation on ultra-short implants on the grounds of insufficient evidence, and long-term data remain the main gap.
Sources
Numbers match the citations beside each claim above.
Clinical evidence
- [1]Guidelines: Update on short, angulated and diameter-reduced implants — 11th European Consensus Conference (EuCC), Cologne — European Association of Dental Implantologists (BDIZ EDI), 2016. Accessed 2026-07-21.