Skip to content
Dr. Khalid AletaibiConservative Dentistry · Dubai

BIOMIMETIC RESTORATIONS

Bridges, only when nothing more conservative will work.

A conventional bridge replaces one missing tooth by cutting down the two healthy teeth on either side. The technology works, well-made bridges can last fifteen years or more, but the trade is enormous, and it is no longer the only conservative answer to a single missing tooth.

QUICK ANSWER

A conventional fixed bridge anchors an artificial replacement tooth (a pontic) to crowns cemented onto the teeth on either side of the gap. Modern systematic reviews report 5-year survival rates around 93%, dropping into the high 80s by ten years. The real question is rarely whether bridges work, they do. It is whether the two adjacent teeth genuinely need to be crowned at all, because once they are cut down, that decision cannot be reversed.

What a bridge actually costs, two teeth, not one

A conventional bridge replaces a single missing tooth by anchoring a pontic to two abutment crowns on the teeth on either side of the gap. To make room for those crowns, the dentist removes the same circumferential band of enamel and dentine that a single crown requires, typically 1.5 to 2 mm of tissue, all the way around, but the cost is now paid by two teeth instead of one. Edelhoff and Sorensen quantified exactly how much sound tooth structure different preparation designs sacrifice [4], and a bridge preparation doubles every number in their tables.

The biological cost is doubled in the same way. Vital teeth that are crowned have a measurable risk of pulpal complications afterwards, and the Bergenholtz and Nyman study, now four decades old but still cited because the principle has not changed, documented the rate of pulp necrosis after prosthetic preparation in vital teeth [5]. When that risk is multiplied by two abutments, the cumulative probability of needing a root canal somewhere on the bridge over its lifetime is not negligible. None of this is an argument that bridges are wrong. It is an argument that the gap should be looked at very honestly before two healthy teeth are committed to filling it.

What the longevity data shows

When the indication for a conventional bridge is correct and the construction is precise, the survival data is reasonably good. The Pjetursson 2007 systematic review compared tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses to implant-supported alternatives and reported 5-year survival rates around 93% for conventional FDPs [1]. The Pjetursson 2004 systematic review of fixed partial dentures with at least 5 years of follow-up is the foundational dataset for that finding and remains the most cited body of evidence on the subject [2]. A more recent meta-analysis specifically on zirconia-based tooth-supported FDPs reported broadly similar short-term survival figures, with the contemporary all-ceramic era now reaching the maturity required for confident recommendations [3].

Two findings from the same body of literature deserve to be read alongside the survival numbers, because they tell you what actually fails. The first is that the bridge framework itself is rarely the failure point. The dominant failure modes in the long-term studies are recurrent decay at the abutment margins, loss of pulp vitality in the abutment teeth, and, eventually, loss of one of the abutment teeth itself, which usually means the entire bridge has to be replaced or converted to something larger. A bridge does not just put two teeth at risk for the cost of one: it links their fates, so that the failure of either one ends the restoration.

How I decide whether a conventional bridge is the right answer

I work down a conservative ladder before I consider cutting two healthy teeth for a bridge. If the gap is in a position where it does not affect chewing, speech, aesthetics, or the stability of the neighbouring teeth, the most conservative answer is sometimes to leave it alone and monitor. If the gap matters, an implant is almost always the more biologically conservative option, it replaces one tooth with one root, without touching anything else. And if the adjacent teeth are completely intact and the gap is in the anterior region, a resin-bonded cantilever bridge is often the right answer: Kern's long-term data shows fifteen-year survival of anterior all-ceramic cantilever resin-bonded FDPs in the very high range, with almost no preparation on the supporting tooth [6].

A conventional crown-retained bridge is the right answer in a narrow set of situations: when an implant is genuinely contraindicated, insufficient bone, medical contraindications, or the patient's informed preference after a full conversation about the alternatives. AND the adjacent teeth already need crowns for independent reasons. When both conditions are true, replacing the missing tooth with a pontic between those crowns is efficient and conservative, because the preparation needed to happen anyway. When only one condition is true, the conservative answer is almost always something else.

COMMON QUESTIONS

What patients ask most.

What's the difference between a bridge and an implant?
An implant replaces one root with one root, a titanium fixture is placed into the bone of the missing tooth, and a crown is placed on top of it. The neighbouring teeth are not touched. A conventional bridge does the opposite: it leaves the gap in the bone empty and cuts down the two adjacent teeth so that crowns can be placed on them and a pontic suspended between them. Whenever bone allows it, the implant is the more biologically conservative option because it spares the adjacent teeth entirely.
How long does a bridge last?
In current systematic reviews, well-made conventional bridges show 5-year survival rates around 93%, dropping into the high 80s by ten years and into the high 70s by fifteen years. The bridge framework itself is rarely the failure point, the dominant failure modes are recurrent decay at one of the abutment margins, loss of vitality in an abutment tooth, or eventual loss of an abutment tooth that ends the entire restoration.
What is a Maryland or resin-bonded bridge?
A resin-bonded bridge replaces a missing tooth by bonding a thin extension (a 'wing') onto the back of an adjacent tooth, instead of cementing a full crown over it. Almost no preparation is needed on the supporting tooth. The long-term data for the modern single-retainer cantilever design, particularly in the anterior region, is excellent, and it is often the most conservative option for replacing an anterior tooth when the supporting tooth is intact and an implant is not yet possible.
Can I just leave the gap?
Sometimes that is the right answer. Not every missing tooth has to be replaced, particularly second molars at the very back, where the absence often does not affect chewing efficiency or the stability of the rest of the mouth. The risks of leaving a gap are tooth drift, opposing tooth super-eruption, food impaction, and altered chewing patterns. Whether those risks are clinically meaningful depends on the specific gap. We assess and recommend honestly rather than reflexively filling every space.
Can a bridge be replaced with an implant later?
Sometimes, but not always. If the abutment teeth are still healthy when the bridge eventually fails, the bridge can be removed and the missing-tooth site can be replaced with an implant, leaving the previously prepared abutments to receive single crowns. But if the bridge has been on the teeth for ten or fifteen years, one or both abutments have often developed decay or pulp problems by that point, and the situation becomes considerably more complex. This is one of the reasons to choose carefully at the start.
How is a bridge cemented?
Adhesive bonding under proper isolation when the materials and remaining tooth structure allow it, conventional cementation when they do not. The cementation step is not a passive 'gluing in': it determines how well the abutment teeth are sealed against bacterial leakage at the margins, which is the most common pathway to long-term failure. For lithium disilicate and full-ceramic bridges in particular, an adhesive bonding protocol is part of why the modern survival numbers are as good as they are.

Bridge, implant, or Maryland, the answer depends on your specific gap.

We will assess the missing-tooth site, the adjacent teeth, the bone, and your own preferences, then explain which of the three options the evidence supports for your specific situation, and why.

Book a Consultation

← Biomimetic Restorations & Endodontics