Ceramic bridge showdown: which material holds up best?

NCT ID NCT06352983

Completed Disease control Sponsor: Malmö University Source: ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

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.

This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.

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.

MISSING TEETH

Contacts and locations

Locations

Malmo university

Malmö, Skåne County, 214 21, Sweden
Malmo university

Malmö, Skåne County, 21421, Sweden

More trials for these conditions

Other studies related to the condition(s) this trial covers.