All-on-4 vs. Traditional Dental Implants: Which Is Right for You?
 If you are replacing a full arch of teeth and you have heard about both All-on-4 and traditional multi-implant approaches, the difference between the two is bigger than it first sounds.
At South Valley Oral and Facial Surgery, our two oral and maxillofacial surgeons place dental implants under both approaches and help patients in San Jose, Gilroy, and Los Banos choose between them honestly.
All-on-4 uses four strategically positioned implants to support a full-arch fixed prosthesis. Traditional full-arch implant approaches typically use six to eight implants, sometimes more, distributed across the arch. Both work. They lead to different timelines, different costs, and different long-term experiences.
For most patients losing or having lost a full arch, All-on-4 is the right answer because it requires fewer implants, takes less time, and costs less in total. It also frequently delivers a same-day fixed prosthesis. Some patients are still better suited to a traditional placement pattern, and Dr. Chehrehsa, who leads regional study clubs on full-arch implant surgery, helps patients sort out which side they fall on.
On This Page
Understanding All-on-4 and Traditional Full-Arch Implants
Both approaches do the same thing at the highest level: they replace an entire arch of teeth with a fixed restoration anchored to implants. The difference is in how many implants are used and how they are positioned.
 All-on-4 uses four implants per arch, with the two posterior implants tilted at an angle. The angled placement lets us anchor into denser bone near the front of the jaw and often avoids the sinuses in the upper arch, which is why patients frequently do not need bone grafting or sinus lift surgery before placement. In many cases, we place the four implants and attach a fixed temporary prosthesis on the same day. A final, definitive prosthesis follows after the implants have fully integrated, usually after a few months. Our practice handles both standard All-on-4 cases and teeth in a day cases where the timeline is more compressed.
Traditional full-arch implant placement uses six, eight, or sometimes more implants distributed evenly across the arch, with vertical rather than angled positioning. The chewing forces spread across more anchor points, and the prosthesis tends to follow a more conventional design. Cases sometimes require bone grafting or sinus lifts because the implants extend into thinner posterior bone, which can lengthen the overall timeline. Total cost is usually higher because more implants go in and more underlying work may be required. Our practice's dental implant surgery approach handles either path.
Where All-on-4 Tends to Excel
For most patients losing or having lost a full arch, All-on-4 is the cleaner answer. It is also the more common recommendation when patients want a same-day fixed prosthesis or want to avoid extensive grafting before treatment can begin.
Where Traditional Placement Sometimes Makes More Sense
A traditional 6-to-8 implant approach can be preferable when a patient has unusual anatomy that makes angled placement difficult, when the patient wants the redundancy of more anchor points, when the prosthesis design calls for a more conventional distribution, or when the patient prefers the option to replace individual implants over time without disturbing the rest of the arch. Our full mouth implants overview covers the umbrella of full-arch options in more detail.
Your Full-Arch Specialist Team in San Jose
Both surgeons at South Valley Oral and Facial Surgery are trained in All-on-4 and traditional full-arch implant placement, which means the recommendation you receive reflects an honest assessment of your case rather than a default approach.
Dr. Arian Chehrehsa, dual board-certified in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Anesthesiology, has particular expertise in full-mouth implant surgery and leads regional study clubs on full-arch implant surgery. He handles cases that range from straightforward All-on-4 placements to complex zygomatic implant cases for patients with severe bone loss. Background on Dr. Chehrehsa's bio.
Dr. Joseph McMurray founded the Gilroy office in 1997 and brings more than 35 years of surgical experience to every case. He served 11 years with the U.S. Navy as fleet oral surgeon aboard USS Nimitz before entering private practice and has been placing implants for decades. More on Dr. McMurray's bio.
Because both surgeons offer both approaches, you will not be steered toward All-on-4 simply because that is what a particular provider happens to favor. Both surgeons consult on each other's full-arch cases when an extra opinion adds value, and the recommendation depends on your bone, your remaining teeth (if any), your medical history, and what kind of restoration fits your life best.
How to Decide Between All-on-4 and Traditional Implants
The consultation is structured to make this decision concrete rather than theoretical.
| 1. |
3D Cone-Beam CT Imaging – Detailed imaging of your jaw in our office shows us bone volume, bone density, sinus locations, and nerve positions. This is what tells us whether All-on-4 angles will work, whether grafting is needed for a traditional approach, and whether zygomatic implants need to be on the table.
|
| 2. |
Medical History and Risk Assessment – Diabetes, smoking, bone-density medications, and other factors affect both approaches, sometimes differently. We review everything that bears on healing and integration.
|
| 3. |
Prosthesis Discussion – Dr. Chehrehsa or Dr. McMurray walks through what kind of restoration you want (material, look, bite, removability), and that conversation often clarifies which placement pattern makes more sense.
|
| 4. |
Timeline and Lifestyle Review – Some patients need to be back to work and chewing soft food within a few days. Others can take months. We match the approach to your timeline.
|
| 5. |
Cost and Financing Walkthrough – You receive a written estimate for whichever approach we recommend, along with a comparison if both are realistic. We do not use vague pricing. |
If you want to start with a structured candidacy check, our candidate guide for All-on-4 covers who tends to be a good fit and who does not. Both Dr. Chehrehsa and Dr. McMurray see patients who were told they are not candidates elsewhere and find a workable plan in many of those cases.
Comparing the Benefits of Each Approach
Both approaches deliver fixed, implant-supported teeth that look and function like natural teeth. They differ in how they get you there.
All-on-4 generally offers fewer surgical sites, often no bone grafting, a faster overall timeline, lower total cost, and the option of a same-day temporary prosthesis in many cases. The angled posterior implants engage the densest available bone in the front of the jaw, which is why grafting is so often skipped. The reduced number of implants does not reduce predictability; All-on-4 has been studied extensively and shows high long-term success rates when planned well. Dr. Chehrehsa leads regional study clubs on full-arch surgery and uses the same evidence-based planning protocols he teaches. Our overview of how long the All-on-4 treatment lasts covers longevity data in more detail.
Traditional 6-to-8 implant approaches generally offer chewing forces distributed across more anchor points, the option to replace individual implants over time without disturbing the rest of the arch, and a more conventional prosthesis design that some clinicians prefer for specific cases. For patients with severe parafunction (heavy clenching or grinding) or very high chewing loads, the additional anchors can be a meaningful advantage. Both surgeons place implants under either pattern.
The honest summary: All-on-4 is the right answer for most patients losing a full arch. Traditional placement is the right answer for some. The number of implants matters less than the planning that goes into placing them, and that planning is what Dr. Chehrehsa and Dr. McMurray prioritize on every case.
Why Patients Choose Our Practice for Full-Arch Implants
Full-arch implant surgery is one of the most demanding procedures in modern oral surgery. The planning involves 3D imaging, surgical guides, prosthesis design, and coordination with the lab. The execution requires precise implant angulation, careful management of soft tissue, and an understanding of how forces will distribute across the arch over decades.
Dr. Chehrehsa leads regional study clubs on full-arch implant surgery, which keeps the practice engaged with current technique. Our Gilroy office has been performing oral and maxillofacial surgery since 1997, and we frequently see patients for second opinions after they were told elsewhere that they could not be candidates. In many of those cases, All-on-4 (or zygomatic implants where bone is severely deficient) becomes a workable path forward.
We also offer the supporting infrastructure that full-arch cases need: in-house IV sedation and general anesthesia, 3D imaging, and a coordinated workflow that does not require you to bounce between offices. Both surgeons are involved in cases that benefit from a second set of eyes.
Cost Considerations for All-on-4 and Traditional Implants
Cost is one of the most common reasons patients ask us about both approaches.
All-on-4 typically costs less in total than a traditional 6-to-8 implant approach for the same arch. Fewer implants mean less surgical time, less material, and often no bone grafting. A traditional approach involves more implants and more frequently requires sinus lifts or grafting before placement, both of which add to the timeline and the total.
That comparison only matters if both approaches are realistic for your case. We will not quote a number until we have evaluated your specific anatomy. After your consultation, you receive a written estimate that you can take home and review. Our how much All-on-4 costs guide walks through the factors that affect the number, and our insurance and financing details cover the coverage side. Dental insurance often covers a portion of the restoration and rarely covers the full cost of either approach; medical insurance occasionally covers portions of implant surgery when it is medically necessary.
Schedule Your Consultation in San Jose
The right answer between All-on-4 and a traditional full-arch approach depends on your bone, your remaining teeth, your medical history, and your goals. A consultation with one of our surgeons gives you the answer for your specific case.
Call us at 408-479-9449 or request an appointment online to schedule. Our San Jose office is at 5595 Winfield Blvd, Suite 202, with additional offices in Gilroy and Los Banos.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is All-on-4 less reliable because it uses fewer implants?
No. All-on-4 has been studied extensively and demonstrates a high long-term success rate comparable to traditional approaches. The reduction in implant count is offset by strategic angled placement, which allows each implant to engage denser bone and distribute chewing forces effectively across the prosthesis.
What happens if one All-on-4 implant fails?
If one implant fails in an All-on-4 case, the remaining three can often continue to support the prosthesis temporarily while we plan a replacement implant. We remove the failed implant, let the site heal, and place a new implant. In a traditional 6-to-8 implant case, losing one implant typically has less effect on the prosthesis because more anchors remain.
Why is All-on-4 usually less expensive than traditional full-arch?
Three reasons. Fewer implants means lower surgical time and lower material costs. Angled placement frequently lets us avoid bone grafting and sinus lifts, which removes a significant pre-implant expense. And the timeline is shorter, which reduces the number of clinical appointments.
Will I need bone grafting for either approach?
Often not for All-on-4, because the angled posterior implants engage denser bone in the front of the jaw. Traditional full-arch placement is more likely to require bone grafting or sinus lifts when posterior bone is thin. We make this call after reviewing your 3D imaging, not before.
How long until I have working teeth?
With All-on-4, many patients leave the surgery appointment with a fixed temporary prosthesis the same day under a teeth in a day protocol, then return for the final prosthesis after 3 to 6 months of integration. A traditional approach without grafting typically follows a similar 3 to 6 month integration period; with grafting, total timeline can extend to 9 to 12 months.
Are both surgeons trained in All-on-4 and traditional approaches?
Yes. Both Dr. Chehrehsa and Dr. McMurray place implants under both approaches. Dr. Chehrehsa concentrates more heavily in full-arch and complex implant cases and leads regional study clubs on the topic, so he sees the highest case volume on the All-on-4 side, but both surgeons can take you through either pathway.
Does insurance cover All-on-4 or traditional full-arch implants?
Dental insurance often covers a portion of either approach but rarely covers the full cost. Medical insurance occasionally helps when surgery is medically necessary (after trauma or cancer treatment, for example). Our team will help you verify your specific benefits before treatment, and our insurance and financing details cover the basics.
Can I switch from traditional implants to All-on-4 later, or vice versa?
It is possible but uncommon. The two approaches use different implant counts and positioning, so switching usually means removing the existing implants and starting over. The better path is choosing the right approach at the start, which is what the consultation is for. |
