In short
- Can add months to treatment.
- Alternatives: shorter, narrower, tilted or zygomatic implants.1
Alternatives to discuss
Systematic review
A systematic review of randomised trials compared short (≤6 mm) implants with ≥10 mm implants across different clinical scenarios. 1
See the review for scenario-specific results and the quality-of-evidence grading.
Systematic review
A meta-analysis of 44 publications found no overall difference in failure rates between tilted and straight (axial) implants, although in studies of the upper jaw only, tilted implants failed more often. 2
Clinical review pending. Facts on this page are checked against the sources listed below (regulatory records, manufacturer documents, peer-reviewed research). A named clinician will review it before we call it medically reviewed.
Last updated 28 Sep 2026 · How we review
Last updated 28 Sep 2026 · How we review
Sources
- Systematic reviewRavidà A et al. Short (≤6 mm) compared with ≥10 mm implants: systematic review of RCTs — J Clin Periodontol, 2024. Accessed 28 Sep 2026.
- Systematic reviewChrcanovic BR et al. Tilted versus axially placed dental implants: a meta-analysis. J Dent 2015 — J Dent, 2015. Accessed 28 Sep 2026.
Educational information only. The choice of implant system depends on your anatomy, restorative plan, bone quality and the clinician's assessment. This website does not recommend a specific implant for you.
