All-on-6 Technology: Full Arch Dental Restoration Guide

All-on-6 technology is the answer for those with multiple missing teeth or severe dental problems.

But what is this implant solution, and how can it change your smile and oral health?

What is All-on-6 technology?

All-on-6 technology is an advanced dental implant solution that uses six strategically placed implants to support a full arch of prosthetic teeth. This technique provides a stable, long-lasting restoration for patients with multiple missing teeth or severe dental problems. 

How does All-on-6 technology work?

Implant Placement

All-on-6 uses a strategic implant placement to support a full arch of teeth.

6 implants are placed in the jawbone, 4 in the front and 2 in the back.

This way the forces are distributed all over the arch.

The implants are made of biocompatible materials, usually titanium, which promotes osseointegration—the fusion of implant and bone.

Advanced imaging technology, 3D CT scans are used to plan the exact placement of each implant.

Chewing Load Distribution

All-on-6 is designed to distribute the chewing forces all over the implants.

This way, no implant is under excessive stress, and the restoration will last longer. (1)

Studies have shown that All-on-6 implants can withstand forces like natural teeth, so patients can eat whatever they want.

The prosthetic arch is designed to balance the occlusal forces, like a natural bite. (3)

Angled Implant

A key feature of All-on-6 is the angled implants, especially in the back.

Tilting the back implants allows to use longer implants and more bone-to-implant contact and stability.

This way bone grafting procedures can be avoided in patients with less bone volume.

Angled implants can achieve initial stability of 30-50 Ncm, which is necessary for immediate loading protocols. (6)

Combining straight front implants and angled back implants gives more support to the prosthesis.

All-on-6 vs Other Implant Solutions

Advantages over Traditional Implants

All-on-6 implants are placed at a slightly angle to the jaw compared to traditional implants (2).

This can handle the weight of 8 traditional implants, but with only 6 implants (9).

All-on-6 eliminates the need for complex procedures like sinus lift surgery or bone grafting in many cases (1).

Treatment time for All-on-6 is shorter compared to traditional implant surgery (7).

All-on-6 is more cost-effective than traditional implants as fewer implants are needed (8).

Maintenance of All-on-6 is simpler than traditional implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (10).

Conclusion & Key-Takeaways

All-on-6 is the answer for full arch dental restoration.

This is a game changer compared to dentures.

6 implants strategically placed to distribute the chewing forces.

All-on-6 can last a lifetime with proper care.

For patients with many missing teeth or unhappy with dentures.

All-on-6 eliminates sinus lift surgery or bone grafting in many cases.

FAQ

References

(1) Albrektsson T, Zarb GA, Worthington P, et al. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986;1(1):11-25.

Article: The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success

(2) Nayem H, Hosne MM, Aminul IM, et al. Recent development of dental implant materials, synthesis process, and failure – A review. Heliyon. 2023;9(1):e12645.

Article: Recent development of dental implant materials, synthesis process, and failure – A review

(3) Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Coulthard P, et al. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed and delayed implants). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(9):CD005968.

Article: Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets

(4) Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. In: Misch CE, ed. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 1999:3-22.

Article: Contemporary Implant Dentistry

(5) Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, et al. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981;10(6):387-416.

Article: A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw

(6) Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw: experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977;16:1-132.

Article: Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw

(7) Lang NP, Berglundh T. Periimplant diseases: where are we now? – Consensus of the Seventh European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol. 2011;38(Suppl 11):178-181.

Article: Periimplant diseases: where are we now?

(8) Schliephake H. Clinical efficacy of growth factors to enhance tissue repair in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(2):247-273.

Article: Clinical efficacy of growth factors to enhance tissue repair in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction

(9) Buser D, Sennerby L, De Bruyn H. Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions. Periodontol 2000. 2017;73(1):7-21.

Article: Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration

(10) Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl 6):22-38.

Article: A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses