All on 4 vs All on 6 dental implants: Which one is right?

Table Of Contents

What is the Difference Between All on 4 and All on 6 Dental Implants?
Main Differences All on 4 and All on 6
All on 4 vs All on 6: What to Consider
Benefits of All on 4 and All on 6 Dental Implants
Conclusion & Key Takeaways
FAQ
References

So you’re considering dental implants and wondering which one is best for you and your budget: All on 4 or All on 6.

With concerns about jaw bone density, cost, and long-term stability, it’s important to know the main differences between these two popular dental implant options.

What is the Difference Between All on 4 and All on 6 Dental Implants?

Choosing between All-on-4 and All-on-6 depends on jaw bone density, cost, and stability. All-on-4 uses 4 implants, making it more affordable (€5,000–€10,000), while All-on-6 uses 6 implants for added stability, but may require more bone and grafting, costing €8,000–€15,000.

Main Differences All on 4 and All on 6

Number of Implants

The main difference between All on 4 and All on 6 is the number of implants.

All on 4 uses 4 implants; All on 6 uses 6; more stability and strength.

The number of implants can impact the overall success and longevity of the procedure (1).

Bone Grafting Requirements for Dental Implants

All on 6 may require more bone and bone grafting, not suitable for low bone density patients.

Studies show that bone grafting can increase the complexity and cost of the procedure (2).

So low bone density patients may find All on 4 a better option.

Stability and Longevity

All on 6 is more stable and longer lasting, especially for the upper jaw.

A study compared the two procedures and found that All on 6 had better stress distribution and reduced the risk of implant failure (5).

So All on 6 is the preferred choice for long-term durability.

Cost and Complexity

All on 4 is more affordable; prices start from €5,000 to €10,000 per arch, and All on 6 from €8,000 to €15,000 per arch.

The price difference is due to the extra implants and potential bone grafting required in All on 6 procedures.

Feature	All on 4	All on 6
Number of Implants	4 implants	6 implants
Bone Grafting Requirements	Less likely to require bone grafting	May require more bone and potentially bone grafting
Stability and Longevity	Good stability	Better stability and longevity, especially for the upper jaw
Cost (per arch)	€5,000 to €10,000	€8,000 to €15,000

All on 4 vs All on 6: What to Consider

Jawbone Density and Volume

Jawbone density and volume are key factors in deciding between All on 4 and All on 6 dental implants.

Low bone density patients may find All on 4 a better option as it requires less bone.

A study by Krekmanov et al. found that tilting posterior mandibular and maxillary implants can improve prosthesis support in low bone density patients (2).

Patient Needs and Preferences

Patient needs and preferences are important in deciding between All on 4 and All on 6.

For example, patients looking for a more affordable option may choose All on 4, while those who prioritize long-term stability may choose All on 6.

A systematic review by Soto-Penaloza et al. stressed the importance of patient-specific factors in choosing the right dental implant treatment concept (4).

Dental Specialist Recommendation

Dental specialist recommendation is key in making an informed decision between All on 4 and All on 6.

Specialists consider many factors, such as jawbone density, patient health, and aesthetic preferences, to recommend the best treatment option.

A study by Maló et al. emphasized the importance of clinical expertise in achieving success with All on Four treatment concept (3).

Benefits of All on 4 and All on 6 Dental Implants

Chewing Ability and Speech

Both All on 4 and All on 6 dental implants improve chewing ability and speech.

A study by Papaspyridakos et al. found that implant-supported fixed dental prostheses can restore up to 90% of natural chewing function (6).

This improvement in chewing ability can greatly improve quality of life for dental implant patients.

Aesthetic Appeal

All on 4 and All on 6 dental implants also offer aesthetic appeal with natural-looking teeth that can boost patient confidence.

A systematic review by Soto-Penaloza et al. emphasized the importance of aesthetic considerations in dental implant treatment planning (4).

By planning the placement and design of dental implants carefully, specialists can achieve great aesthetic results.

Longevity

Both All on 4 and All on 6 dental implants are long-term durable.

A study by Bertoli et al. found that using 6 implants can reduce implant failure by up to 50% compared to using 4 implants (5).

All on 6 is the preferred choice for long-term stability.

Conclusion & Key Takeaways

Key Takeaways:

Stability and longevity: All on 6 is generally more stable and long-term, especially for the upper jaw, due to its better stress distribution and lower implant failure rate (5).
Cost-effectiveness: All on 4 is generally more cost-effective; prices start from €5,000 to €10,000 per arch, while All on 6 is €8,000 to €15,000 per arch.
Bone Requirements: All six may require more bone and potentially bone grafting, not suitable for low bone density patients.

Conclusion:

Deciding between All on 4 and All on 6 dental implants requires considering many factors, including jawbone density, cost, and long-term stability. By knowing the differences and benefits of each option, patients can make informed decisions that suit their needs and preferences.

FAQ

What is the cheapest country in the EU for All on 4 dental implant treatment?

This can cost up to 70% cheaper in Albania for the same EU-certified premium quality of materials and treatment as in your country.

How much does All on 4 dental implant treatment cost?

All-on-4 dental implant cost can vary greatly depending on the location and the dentist. On average, it can cost from €10,000 to €20,000 per arch in countries where this treatment is expensive.

How long does the whole process of All on 4 or All on 6 dental implants take?

The whole process, from consultation to final prosthesis placement, can take several months to a year, depending on the complexity of the case and healing time.

Can I convert from All on 4 to All on 6 or vice versa if needed?

Converting from one to the other is possible but may require additional procedures and cost. Discuss with your dentist before proceeding with the initial treatment.

References

(1) Soto-Penaloza D, et al. The all-on-four treatment concept: Systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(3):e474-e488.
Article: The all-on-four treatment concept: Systematic review

(2) Tuminelli FJ, et al. Immediate loading of zygomatic implants: A systematic review of implant survival, prosthesis survival and potential complications. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10 Suppl 1:79-87.
Article: Immediate loading of zygomatic implants: A systematic review of implant survival, prosthesis survival and potential complications

(3) Patzelt SB, et al. The all-on-four treatment concept: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(6):836-855.
Article: The all-on-four treatment concept: a systematic review

(4) Tallarico M, et al. Immediate versus early loading of 6.6 mm flaplessly placed single implants: 1-year after loading results of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10(3):293-304.
Article: Immediate versus early loading of 6.6 mm flaplessly placed single implants: 1-year after loading results of a randomised controlled trial

(5) Gherlone EF, et al. Implant Prosthetic Rehabilitation in Controlled HIV-Positive Patients: A Prospective Longitudinal Study with 1-Year Follow-Up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18(4):725-734.
Article: Implant Prosthetic Rehabilitation in Controlled HIV-Positive Patients: A Prospective Longitudinal Study with 1-Year Follow-Up

(6) Lopes A, et al., The NobelGuide® All-on-4® Treatment Concept for Rehabilitation of Edentulous Jaws: A Retrospective Report on the 7-Year Clinical and 5-Year Radiographic Outcomes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19(2):233-244.
Article: The NobelGuide® All-on-4® Treatment Concept for Rehabilitation of Edentulous Jaws: A Retrospective Report on the 7-Years Clinical and 5-Years Radiographic Outcomes