
Choosing four or six implants to support immediate full‐arch fixed prostheses (FAFPs) is still controversial worldwide. Therefore, this study aims to analyze and compare the long‐term results of All‐on‐4 and All‐on‐6. In general, the All‐on‐4 group indicated no significant difference with the All‐on‐6 group in the implant survival, prosthesis survival, biological complications, technical complications of the provisional prosthesis, technical difficulties of the definitive prosthesis and the 1st, 5th, and 10th-year MBL. Based on this study, the long‐term clinical results showed no significant difference between All‐on‐4 and All‐on‐6 groups. For the clinicians' decision‐making, medium‐experienced clinicians and implant prosthodontists showed a significant preference for All‐on‐6.
Like
Save
Share