This review compares All-on-4 and All-on-6 implants, highlighting differences in outcomes and biomechanics.
AbstractFull arch implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation has become the standard of care for edentulous patients. The All-on-4 and All-on-6 implant concepts are widely practiced techniques designed to provide immediate function and long-term stability. This review critically compares both concepts in terms of biomechanics, implant survival, prosthetic design, complications, and patient-centered outcomes. Evidence suggests that while both protocols offer high success rates,All-on-6 demonstrates superior stress distribution and prosthetic support in patients with adequate bone volume.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amna Nisar (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: