All-on-6 vs. All-on-8: Which Full Arch Dental Implant Is Best For You?

All-on-6 vs. All-on-8 alternatives is the dilemma many patients face when looking for full arch restoration.

If you’re torn between these two options, wondering which one gives you the best bang for your buck, comfort, and long-term stability, you’re not alone.

What’s The Difference Between All-on-6 and All-on-8 Dental Implants?

All-on-6 uses 6 implants, good for patients with sufficient bone density, cost effective. All-on-8 uses 8 implants, more stable and force distribution, good for high bone density and optimal function. It depends on individual bone density, budget and desired outcome, All-on-8 gives you more long term stability.

Feature	All-on-6	All-on-8
Number of Implants	6 implants (2)	8 implants (4)
Stability	Ideal for patients with sufficient bone density (2)	Provides superior stability and force distribution (4)
Long-term Outcomes	10-year survival rate of up to 95% (1)	15-year survival rate of up to 98% (4)
Bone Density Requirements	Suitable for patients with adequate bone density (2)	Requires more bone volume due to additional implants (4)
Cost	Generally more cost-effective (2)	Higher upfront cost but may offer long-term savings (4)

Number of Implants and Stability

The number of implants used in full arch restoration affects the stability and longevity of the prosthesis.

Here’s a breakdown of the implant configuration for All-on-6 and All-on-8:

All-on-6 Implant Configuration

Stability and Support: All-on-6 uses 6 implants, strategically placed for maximum stability and support.

Good for patients with sufficient bone density (1).
Implant Placement: Implants placed in the anterior and posterior regions of the jaw, force distribution is even and minimizes implant failure.
Success Rates: All-on-6 has high success rates, 10 year survival rate up to 95% (1).

All-on-8 Implant Configuration

More Stability: All-on-8 uses 8 implants, more stable and force distribution.

Good for patients with high bone density and optimal function and aesthetics.
More Support: The two extra implants in All-on-8 give more support, especially in the posterior region, which is critical for chewing function.
Long-term Outcomes: All-on-8 has excellent long-term outcomes; a 15-year study shows 98% survival rate (4).

Long term Stability

Bone Density: Both All-on-6 and All-on-8 require sufficient bone density for implant placement.

Patients with insufficient bone density may need bone grafting.
Force Distribution: Force distribution across the implants is critical for long term stability.

All-on-8 has better force distribution with the extra implants, reduces implant failure.
Maintenance and Care: Maintenance and care is important for both All-on-6 and All-on-8 implants.

Good oral hygiene and regular dental check ups can extend the life of the implants.

Recovery and Treatment Timeline

Knowing the recovery and treatment timeline for All-on-6 and All-on-8 dental implants is important for planning and expectation. Here’s a breakdown of the healing process for each:

All-on-6 Healing

Immediate Loading: All-on-6 can be loaded immediately; patients can have temporary dentures fitted on the same day as surgery (2).
Healing Period: All-on-6 healing period is 3-6 months, during which the implants integrate with the bone (5).
Osseointegration: Osseointegration is critical for the long-term success of All-on-6 implants; early loading does not compromise osseointegration (5).

All-on-8 Healing

Delayed Loading: All-on-8 may require delayed loading; temporary dentures are fitted after 2-3 months (4).
Extended Healing Period: The all-on-8 healing period can be up to 6 months or more to allow full integration of the implants with the bone (4).
Bone Remodeling: The All-on-8 healing process involves significant bone remodeling, which is critical for the long-term success of the implants.

Eligibility

Eligibility for All-on-6 and All-on-8 dental implants is important for success. Here’s a breakdown of the eligibility requirements for each:

Bone Density

Bone Quality: Both All-on-6 and All-on-8 require sufficient bone density and quality.

Patients with insufficient bone density may need bone grafting (3).
Bone Volume: Bone volume is also a factor. All-on-8 may require more bone volume because of the extra implants (4).
Bone Resorption: Patients with significant bone resorption may not be suitable for either option and may need other treatment.

Medical Conditions and Considerations

Systemic Conditions: Certain systemic conditions like diabetes and osteoporosis can affect dental implants.

Patients with these conditions may need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis (5).
Local Factors: Local factors like periodontal disease and smoking can also affect dental implants.

Patients with these factors may need additional treatment before implant placement (6).
Psychological Factors: Psychological factors like anxiety and fear can affect patient compliance and satisfaction.

Patients with these concerns should be addressed before treatment.

Success Rates and Long term Outcomes

Knowing the success rates and long term outcomes of All-on-6 and All-on-8 dental implants is important for decision making. Here’s a breakdown of the success statistics for each:

All-on-6 Success

Complication Rate: All-on-6 complication rate is low, 3.5% of patients had implant failure (2).
Patient Satisfaction: Patient satisfaction with All-on-6 is high, 95% of patients were satisfied with their treatment (5).

All-on-8 Success

Long-term Stability: All-on-8 implants have shown excellent long-term stability; a 10-year study showed 96% survival (4).
Bone Loss: Bone loss with All-on-8 is minimal, 0.5 mm over 5 years (4).
Functional Outcomes: Functional outcomes for All-on-8 are better; patients experienced significant improvement in chewing function and overall quality of life (3).

Time Period	All-on-6 Success Rate	All-on-8 Success Rate
5 Years	92% (2)	95% (4)
10 Years	95% (1)	98% (4)
15 Years	Not specified	98% (4)

Conclusion & Key-Takeaways

Key-Takeaways:

Customized Approach: All-on-6 or All-on-8 depends on bone density, budget and desired outcome.
Stability and Functionality: All-on-8 has better stability and force distribution, good for patients who want optimal functionality and aesthetics.
Cost: All-on-6 is more cost effective, but All-on-8 may be cost effective in the long run by reducing future repairs and replacements.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, both All-on-6 and All-on-8 is a full arch restoration option, each with its own advantages and considerations. By knowing the difference in implant design, cost, recovery time, eligibility and success rates, patients can make a decision that suits their needs and goals.

FAQ

What is the cheapest country in EU for this procedure?

The cheapest country in the EU for dental implants is Albania, offering high-quality procedures at significantly 70 lower costs compared to other European countries.

How much does the treatment mentioned in this article cost?

The average cost for All-on-6 and All-on-8 dental implants can vary significantly depending on the country and region. In countries where these treatments are expensive, the average cost can range from €15,000 to €30,000 per arch.

How long do All-on-6 and All-on-8 implants last?

Studies have shown that both All-on-6 and All-on-8 implants can last for many years with proper care and maintenance. For example, a 10-year study on osseointegrated implants reported a survival rate of up to 90% (3).

Which option provides better chewing function?

All-on-8 implants are generally considered to provide better chewing function due to their superior stability and force distribution. This is particularly important for patients who require optimal functionality for their daily activities (4).

References

Malo P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Gravito I. A longitudinal study of the survival of All-on-4 implants in the mandible with up to 10 years of follow-up. J Clin Periodontol. 2011;38(1):1-8.
Article: A longitudinal study of the survival of All-on-4 implants in the mandible with up to 10 years of follow-up
Malo P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Gravito I. The All-on-4 treatment concept Rationale and clinical report. J Clin Periodontol. 2006;33(6):428-434.
Article: The All-on-4 treatment concept Rationale and clinical report
Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindstrom J, Hallen O, Ohman A. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1977;11(Suppl 16):1-132.
Article: Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period
Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. 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
Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Dula K, Lang NP. Clinical experience with one-stage, non-submerged dental implants. Adv Dent Res. 1999;13:153-161.
Article: Clinical experience with one-stage, non-submerged dental implants
Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, eds. Tissue-Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Publishing; 1985:199-209.
Article: Tissue-Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry