A Guide to Six Types of Dental Implants

Micro, endosteal, All-on-4, zygomatic, pterygoid and subperiosteal implants explained: what each one is for, and why the right choice depends on your bone and your health rather than on any single “best” implant.

On this page

• Short answer: there is no single best implant
• Micro-implants
• Endosteal implants
• All-on-4 and All-on-6
• Zygomatic implants
• Pterygoid implants
• Subperiosteal implants
• What actually decides the choice

There is no universal implant that suits everyone. Choosing a dental implant is a key step in restoring the function and appearance of teeth after tooth loss, but the right option depends on your bone, your general health, your habits and the result you want, not on one product being better than the rest.

The names can be confusing: micro-implants, endosteal, All-on-4, zygomatic, pterygoid, subperiosteal. Each exists to solve a particular problem. Below we explain what each type is, when it makes sense, and where its limits lie, so the picture is clearer before you ever sit in a consultation. One point runs through all of it: the outcome depends not only on the implant, but on the planning and the surgical skill behind it.

Type 1

Micro-implants

Micro-implants are smaller than standard implants, usually about 1.8 to 3 mm in diameter. Their narrow size makes them useful where space is tight or where a smaller anchor is enough for the task at hand.

In practice you will most often meet them in orthodontics, where they act as a fixed anchorage point to move other teeth in a controlled way, and in some cases to help stabilise a lower denture. They are not usually a substitute for a full-size implant that has to carry heavy chewing load on its own. Think of them as a specific tool rather than a smaller version of the same thing. Orthodontics: orthodontics

Type 2

Endosteal implants

Endosteal implants are the most common type. A small screw, usually titanium, is placed directly into the jawbone and acts as an artificial tooth root. Over the following weeks it fuses with the bone in a process called osseointegration, and a crown, bridge or denture is then fixed on top.

For most people with healthy bone, this is the standard and well-proven solution, whether replacing a single tooth or several. The long-term evidence is reassuring: a 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis found around 96 percent of implants still in place at ten years [1]. That record depends on sound bone, good technique and consistent aftercare rather than on the implant alone.

Where it can fall short: if the jawbone has thinned after years of missing teeth or denture wear, there may not be enough of it to hold a standard endosteal implant. That is the point where the techniques below come in. Implantology overview: implantology

Type 3

All-on-4 and All-on-6

The All-on-4 method restores a full arch of fixed teeth on just four implants, and All-on-6 on six. Instead of replacing every missing tooth with its own implant, a fixed bridge is anchored on a small number of well-positioned implants, often including tilted ones that make good use of the bone that remains.

For people who have lost all their teeth in a jaw, or are about to, this can mean a fixed, non-removable set of teeth, in many cases with a provisional bridge fitted quickly after surgery. The approach is well documented: systematic reviews report high implant survival over several years of follow-up [2]. It is a strong option for the right patient, though not automatically the answer for everyone; suitability still depends on bone volume and the individual plan. All-on-4 treatment: all-on-4

Type 4

Zygomatic implants

Zygomatic implants are long implants, up to around 60 mm, designed for severe bone loss in the upper jaw. Rather than relying on the resorbed jawbone, they anchor into the zygomatic bone, the dense cheekbone, which stays solid even when the upper jaw has thinned considerably.

For patients who were previously told that fixed teeth were not possible without extensive bone grafting, this can open a route that avoids much of that grafting and shortens the overall path to fixed teeth. It is a demanding surgical procedure that belongs in experienced hands. The published record is encouraging: a systematic review reported cumulative success of about 96 percent beyond five years of follow-up [3]. Zygomatic All-on-4: Zygoma

Type 5

Pterygoid implants

Pterygoid implants address a specific problem: extensive bone loss at the back of the upper jaw, where standard implants often cannot find enough support. They are angled to anchor in the pterygoid region further back in the skull, providing a firm rear anchor for a fixed bridge.

They are frequently used together with other implants to support a full-arch restoration without a sinus lift or bone graft in the back of the mouth. Like zygomatic implants, they call for particular surgical experience and careful 3D planning, which is why they are offered in relatively few centres. Pterygoid implants: pterygoid

Type 6

Subperiosteal implants

Subperiosteal implants take a different approach altogether. Instead of a screw inside the bone, a custom metal frame is placed on top of the remaining bone, under the gum and the periosteum, and shaped to fit that patient’s jaw exactly. Modern versions are designed from a CBCT scan and manufactured individually.

They are reserved for situations where there is very little bone left and where placing implants inside the bone is not realistic. As a highly individual solution for demanding cases, they are planned meticulously and are not a routine, everyday option. Subperiosteal implants: subperiosteal

A note on the “no bone” techniques: zygomatic, pterygoid and subperiosteal implants exist precisely for patients who have been turned away elsewhere. They are genuinely valuable, but they are also advanced procedures, so honest planning and surgical experience matter more here than with any standard implant.

The real question

What actually decides the choice

The choice of implant is not made from a catalogue. It follows from your specific situation, and above all from how much bone you have and where it sits. These are the factors we weigh:

This is why any serious plan starts with a 3D scan (CBCT) and a proper examination. Placing sophisticated implants and building a functional, natural-looking result asks for surgical precision and for the coordination of the whole team, the surgeon, the prosthodontist and the technician, working to the same plan. Not every practice offers every technique on this page, so it is fair to ask directly which options are genuinely available to you.

At our clinic the first examination is free, and it includes talking through which of these options actually fit your case. We plan with guided implantology and CBCT so the plan rests on your anatomy, not on guesswork. Guided implantology and CBCT planning: guided-implantology

Frequently asked questions