Procedure detail

Molar (Posterior) Implants: Heavy Loads and the Sinus

Molars chew with up to 10× the force of incisors. Replacing them with implants means wider diameters, careful occlusion, and — in the upper jaw — managing the sinus.

Reading time
7–9 min
Medically reviewed
Reviewed by a licensed dentist
Last updated
2026-06-01

Medically reviewed by

Medical Review Board (External Clinical Advisors)

Medical review

Editorial review

Evidence Review Lead

Editorial review

Last reviewed:
2026-06-01
Last updated:
2026-06-01
Reading time:
7–9 min
Version:
1.0

Overview

Molar implants are mechanically the most demanding sites in the mouth. Bite forces are several times higher than at the incisors, the residual ridges are commonly narrow or shallow, and in the upper jaw the maxillary sinus often pneumatises into the extraction site, leaving inadequate height for a standard implant.

Implant diameter and number

A standard 3.5–4.1 mm implant under heavy molar load can overload the surrounding bone and the prosthetic screw. Wide-diameter implants (4.5–6 mm) are preferred where ridge width allows. For a single missing molar with a wide mesiodistal gap, some clinicians place two narrower implants rather than one wide one, particularly when the gap exceeds 12–13 mm.

The sinus problem in the upper jaw

Upper molar roots commonly sit immediately below — or even within — the maxillary sinus floor. After extraction, the sinus often expands inferiorly, leaving only a few millimetres of bone height. Standard implants need ~8–10 mm of vertical bone. The two solutions are lateral window sinus lift (for severe deficiency, ≥6 mm augmentation needed) and crestal / osteotome sinus lift (for 2–4 mm augmentation done at implant placement). Both have very high long-term success in pooled data[2].

Occlusion and prosthetic design

  • Centric contacts placed over the long axis of the implant, not on cusp inclines.
  • Slightly reduced occlusal table (narrower buccolingually) to lower load.
  • Mutually protected occlusion: anterior guidance disengages molars in lateral excursions.
  • Screw-retained crowns where feasible — easier retrieval if the screw loosens.

Frequently asked questions

Scientific references

  1. 1. Moraschini V, Poubel LA, Ferreira VF, Barboza ES. (2015). Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 44(3):377-88. View source
  2. 2. Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. (2008). A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. J Clin Periodontol. 35(8 Suppl):216-40. View source