Restoring a missing tooth always requires a carefully balanced clinical decision, as the goal extends beyond aesthetics to the function of the entire dentofacial system. According to Professor Alexander von Breuer, the choice between implant placement and bridge restoration should be based not on patient or clinician preference, but on a thorough analysis of biological, functional, and prognostic factors. At DentalClinic24, this principle forms the foundation of prosthetic treatment planning.
Implant placement is regarded as the method that most closely replicates natural tooth physiology. An implant transfers load directly to the bone, preserving adjacent teeth in an intact state. At DentalClinic24, implant therapy is preferred when bone volume and quality are sufficient, occlusion is stable, and there are no contraindications related to the patient’s general health.
However, clinical conditions do not always allow implant placement to be the optimal solution. Insufficient bone volume, pronounced anatomical limitations, or systemic factors may significantly compromise prognosis. In such cases, bridge restoration remains a clinically justified alternative. At DentalClinic24, a bridge is not viewed as a compromise, but as an independent treatment option with clearly defined indications.
The condition of the abutment teeth plays a decisive role when considering a bridge. If adjacent teeth already have restorations, altered morphology, or a reduced long-term prognosis, their use as supports may be clinically appropriate. At DentalClinic24, the evaluation extends beyond the current condition of the teeth to their anticipated functional capacity over many years.
Biomechanics represents another critical factor. Implants and bridges distribute functional loads differently. An implant functions autonomously, while a bridge unites multiple teeth into a single biomechanical system. At DentalClinic24, clinicians assess how each option will influence occlusion, muscle activity, and temporomandibular joint function.
The time dimension of treatment is also significant. Implant therapy requires staged treatment and a period for osseointegration, whereas a bridge can often be fabricated more quickly. However, speed does not equate to clinical appropriateness. At DentalClinic24, treatment timelines are aligned with prognosis and risk assessment rather than the desire to accelerate the process.
Patient age further influences the decision-making process. In younger patients, implant placement is often favored as a more conservative solution for adjacent teeth. In older patients, tissue condition, oral hygiene level, and adaptive capacity become especially important. At DentalClinic24, these parameters are evaluated on an individual basis.
Financial considerations are acknowledged but never become the determining factor. Professor Alexander von Breuer emphasizes that cost-saving decisions at the treatment selection stage may lead to more complex and expensive interventions in the future. At DentalClinic24, patients are always informed about the long-term implications of each option, not merely the immediate cost.
Patient adaptation must also be taken into account. An implant requires adaptation to a new load-bearing structure, while a bridge necessitates adjustment to altered biomechanics of the abutment teeth. At DentalClinic24, functional integration is assessed after placement of any prosthetic construction to prevent overload and complications.
In summary, the choice between implant placement and bridge restoration is a multifactorial clinical decision. Evaluation of bone condition, tooth status, occlusion, biomechanics, and overall prognosis allows for selection of the method that ensures stability and durability. At Dental Clinic24, this choice is always guided by medical rationale and the long-term preservation of dentofacial health.
Previously, we wrote about the adaptation period after dental filling and what is permitted and contraindicated to preserve restoration sealing