Ceramic bridge showdown: which material holds up best?

NCT ID NCT06352983

First seen Jun 27, 2026 · Last updated Jun 27, 2026

Summary

This study looked at two types of ceramic bridges used to replace one or two missing back teeth. Researchers followed 31 people for up to 4 years to see which bridge material had fewer problems like fractures or loosening. The goal is to find out which option works better and lasts longer.

What this could mean

Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only — not medical advice or a prediction.

Active substance

high-translucent zirconium dioxide ceramic bridge

What this could lead to

If successful, this could show that one type of ceramic bridge lasts longer with fewer problems, helping dentists choose better materials for tooth replacement.

What could go wrong

This is a small, completed study with only 31 participants, so results may not apply to everyone. Bridges can still break or cause other dental issues.

Disclaimer Read more

This is a summary of the original study . Summaries may miss details or leave out important information. Before applying or accepting participation, make sure you have read and understood the full study. Curemydisease.com takes no responsibility whatsoever for anything missed, misunderstood, or acted upon as a result of our summary — we know it does not capture everything.

Get updates

Get notified about this study

Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for MISSING TEETH are added.

Our safety recommendation!

By submitting, you agree to our Terms of use

Conditions

The condition(s) this trial relates to.

anodontia tooth agenesis

As listed by the trial registrant

The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.

Contacts and locations

Locations

  • Malmo university

    Malmö, Skåne County, 214 21, Sweden

  • Malmo university

    Malmö, Skåne County, 21421, Sweden