“Do two healthy teeth really have to be ground down in order to replace one missing tooth?” This question is raised regularly in the prosthodontic surgery, and it is entirely legitimate, because it goes to the heart of the matter: the individual types of dental bridges differ above all in how much of the patient’s own tissue must be given up in exchange for restoring a missing tooth.
This article does not settle which bridge is better than the others, because no such answer exists in isolation from a particular mouth. It answers far more practical questions: what biological price is paid for each of the three solutions, what the treatment looks like step by step, how long the restorations genuinely last, and what they change in day-to-day oral hygiene.
What a dental bridge actually is
A dental bridge is a fixed prosthodontic restoration — unlike a denture, the patient does not remove it for cleaning. It consists of two types of element. The abutment — either a natural tooth or an implant — takes up the load and provides the point of support. The pontic (the part of the bridge that replaces the missing tooth) rests on the abutments — most often on two, and in cantilever designs on only one — and has no contact with bone. Depending on the design, it either lies against the mucosa of the alveolar ridge or remains slightly separated from it.
This construction has one feature worth understanding before any decision is taken: a bridge always transfers occlusal forces from the edentulous site onto the adjacent teeth or implants. The abutments therefore work both for themselves and for the pontic. That is why their baseline condition matters more than the material from which the restoration itself will be made.
This also has a practical consequence for span length. The longer the pontic, the greater the load on the abutments — and the deflection of the framework itself increases far more rapidly than its length: it is proportional to the cube of the span, so doubling the length of the pontic increases deflection eightfold. This is why bridges replacing one or two adjacent teeth are a predictable solution, whereas with larger edentulous spaces support on natural teeth alone becomes increasingly difficult to justify.
Does every missing tooth have to be replaced?
Before the question of the types of dental bridges arises, it is worth answering an earlier one: whether anything needs to be done at all. A single missing posterior tooth can go unnoticed for years and does not hurt, so the decision is easily postponed.
The consequences, however, depend on which tooth is missing. In some patients the teeth adjacent to the gap tilt towards it, and the opposing tooth, deprived of contact, over-erupts from its socket. This does not happen in everyone, nor at every site. Where it does occur, the distribution of forces during chewing changes, and dental plaque accumulates more easily in the newly created irregularities. The bone of the alveolar ridge (the part of the maxilla or mandible in which the teeth are set) remodels most rapidly in the first six months after a tooth is removed: after three months it loses roughly one third of its width, and after six months — depending on the study — from close to 30% to more than 60%. This is not the result of a lack of loading, but of the resorption of the layer of bone intimately associated with the attachment apparatus of the extracted tooth. A prosthodontic restoration on its own therefore does not halt this remodelling.
The practical outcome is that after several years of delay the list of available solutions is often shorter than it was at the outset. Tilted abutment teeth complicate the fabrication of a bridge, and bone loss may rule out an implant without prior reconstruction of the site. This is not an argument for haste — it is an argument for an informed decision rather than passive postponement.
Types of dental bridges and the biological price of each
The conventional bridge — on prepared abutment teeth
The oldest and still the most frequently used solution. The teeth adjacent to the gap are prepared circumferentially and then covered with crowns joined to the pontic. The restoration is stable, technically predictable and feasible in almost every case in which the abutments are sufficiently sound.
The biological price here is the highest of all the options. Preparing a tooth for a crown removes a substantial amount of enamel and dentine, and the process is irreversible — the tissue does not grow back. The closer the preparation comes to the pulp (the innervated and vascularised tissue inside the tooth), the greater the risk that the tooth will in time require root canal treatment. This is why a conventional bridge is most justified when the abutment teeth need restoring in any case: when they have extensive fillings or cracks, or have already undergone root canal treatment. Preparing two intact, healthy teeth in order to replace a single missing one is a decision that contemporary prosthodontics takes ever more rarely.
It is also worth knowing what the evidence does not tell us. The most recent systematic review of monolithic zirconia restorations (restorations milled from a single block, without a porcelain veneering layer) supported by natural teeth included single crowns only — 1,657 single-tooth restorations — and the mean follow-up was barely about one year. Survival in these observations ranged from 91% to 100%, but this is too short a period to draw conclusions about the durability of a bridge over ten to fifteen years. One of the included studies clearly stood out, covering patients with bruxism (habitual clenching and grinding of the teeth) — in that group marginal discrepancies at the junction of restoration and tooth appeared far more often, although the restorations themselves remained in service.
The resin-bonded bridge — a minimally invasive alternative
A resin-bonded bridge (also called a Maryland bridge or a wing-retained bridge) is attached to the abutment teeth by means of thin wings bonded to the lingual or palatal surface. Preparation is minimal, and often confined to enamel. The loss of the patient’s own tissue is two to four times smaller than with a conventional bridge, and the risk of pulpal complications is practically negligible.
Until recently resin-bonded bridges were regarded as a solution for the anterior region only. That is changing. In a three-year clinical study involving 36 patients, in whom 40 cantilever zirconia resin-bonded bridges were placed in the posterior region, just under 9 in 10 restorations remained in service after three years. Roughly 3 in 4 survived without any complication requiring intervention. The typical complication of resin-bonded bridges — described in the literature independently of this study — is debonding, that is, the wing coming away: troublesome, but usually repairable without damage to the abutment tooth. Participants in this study rated their treatment highly, and their perception of their oral health had clearly improved after three years.
These figures illustrate the real trade-off. Setting results from separate studies side by side — since direct comparisons are lacking — suggests that a resin-bonded bridge is less durable than a crown-retained restoration, but its failure does not usually cost the patient a tooth. With a conventional bridge the situation is reversed: the construction lasts longer, but if an abutment fails, the tooth is often beyond saving. It must be stressed that the results cited come from a single study without a comparison group, and that the restorations were made to a strictly defined wing design — not every resin-bonded bridge will behave in the same way.
The solution works best in patients with intact adjacent teeth, a normal occlusion and a single missing tooth. In cases of marked bruxism or a deep anterior overbite, the risk of debonding increases.
The implant-supported bridge — without involving natural teeth
The third solution transfers the load onto implants placed in bone, bypassing the adjacent teeth entirely. In terms of the biological price paid by the natural dentition, this is the most favourable option. The cost, however, is a surgical procedure, a longer course of treatment and the requirement for an adequate volume of bone.
The clinical data for this group are good. In a review covering 644 monolithic zirconia restorations supported by implants, only one fracture of the restorative material was recorded over follow-up of up to 5 years. For bridges alone, survival over this period approached 100%. Another meta-analysis, covering almost 1,300 ceramic implant-supported restorations, confirms this picture: among bridges, fractures of the material were practically absent, and technical complications affected about 4 in 100 cases.
The nature of these complications is, however, the key point. The most common were screw loosening, debonding of the restoration and minor ceramic chipping — all of them regarded as repairable without replacing the entire construction. The limitation of these data is time: the median follow-up was 2 years, and the longest observations 6 years. About the behaviour of implant-supported bridges after fifteen years we still know too little to speak of an established consensus.
Comparing the types of dental bridges — what each solution costs
The table below sets out the three types of dental bridges according to four criteria that determine the choice in practice. The table does not, however, settle the decision: which column carries the most weight is determined by the clinical situation of the individual patient.
| Type of bridge | Indications | Invasiveness | Durability (what the evidence says) | Oral hygiene |
| Conventional (on prepared teeth) | Abutments already restored, root treated or with extensive fillings; conditions unsuitable for an implant | Highest — irreversible circumferential preparation of 2 teeth | Longest clinical track record; no recent long-term data for monolithic zirconia | Cleaning beneath the pontic is essential (floss with a stiffened end or an interdental brush; irrigator only as an adjunct) |
| Resin-bonded (wing-retained) | Single missing tooth, healthy adjacent teeth, normal occlusion | Lowest — preparation within enamel, often minimal | At 3 years, just under 9 in 10 still in service (88.1%); free of complications about 3 in 4 (76.2%). Typical failure: debonding of the wing | Similar to natural teeth; plus the area beneath the pontic |
| Implant-supported | One or more missing teeth, healthy adjacent teeth, sufficient bone volume, no contraindications to surgery | Surgical procedure, but zero tissue loss from the adjacent teeth | In observations of up to 5 years, fractures of the material were very rare. Technical complications about 4 in 100 — data from a meta-analysis with a median follow-up of 2 years; usually repairable | Most demanding — interdental brushes, irrigator, regular hygiene appointments |
Material: monolithic zirconia versus veneered restorations
For years the veneered construction was the standard — a strong core covered with a layer of aesthetic porcelain. The problem is that the veneering layer chips. In a large meta-analysis comparing the two approaches in implant-supported crowns, ceramic chipping occurred roughly four times more often with veneered restorations than with monolithic ones. The difference was pronounced enough that it is hard to explain by chance.
The conclusion concerns single crowns, not bridges — an important caveat. The direction is nevertheless consistent with what is seen in prosthodontic practice: where aesthetics permit, a restoration milled from a single block of material is simply less prone to chipping. In the anterior region, where aesthetic demands are highest, veneering may still be justified.
In our dental practice at Modern Dental & Orthodontics (Klinika MDO) we observe that patients asking about the types of dental bridges most often compare them on price and treatment time alone, and far less often ask what will happen to the abutment teeth in ten years’ time. We describe the procedures themselves in more detail on our page prosthodontics in Warsaw. protetyka w Warszawie.
How treatment proceeds, step by step
Patients usually ask about the types of dental bridges in terms of the end result, and less often in terms of the route to it. Yet it is precisely the course of treatment that most often determines whether a given option is realistic for a particular person.
The conventional bridge pathway
The first appointment involves examination, a radiograph and assessment of the abutments — sometimes prior restorative or root canal treatment is necessary. At the next appointment the teeth are prepared under local anaesthesia and an impression or scan is taken. The patient leaves with a temporary bridge made of acrylic: it protects the prepared teeth, maintains appearance and allows normal speech. The finished construction is tried in and cemented usually one to two weeks later. The whole process is most often completed in three appointments spread over several weeks.
The resin-bonded bridge pathway
The course is similar, but shorter and gentler. Preparation is sometimes so slight that anaesthesia is not always required, and a temporary restoration is often unnecessary. The moment of bonding itself is decisive for success: the operating field must remain completely dry, which is why rubber dam (a rubber sheet isolating the teeth from saliva) is used. This appointment takes longer than the simplicity of the construction would suggest.
The implant-supported bridge pathway
Here the route is the longest. Treatment begins with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). This is a three-dimensional imaging examination used in dentistry, with a radiation dose usually considerably lower than that of conventional computed tomography. The implants are then placed, after which comes a period of healing — most often from three to six months — during which osseointegration occurs (the direct connection between the implant surface and living bone, without an intervening layer of connective tissue). If there is insufficient bone, an earlier stage of bone reconstruction is added, extending treatment by further months. A temporary restoration is used during healing. Only once satisfactory integration has been confirmed is the definitive prosthodontic restoration made.
The first weeks with a new bridge
All types of dental bridges require a period of adaptation. It is usually short, but the effect is not immediate. For the first few days the bridge may be perceived as a foreign body, and the tongue returns to it persistently. In the anterior region the pronunciation of sibilant sounds may change for a few days — speech returns to normal spontaneously as the tongue becomes accustomed to the new contour of the palatal surfaces of the teeth.
Transient sensitivity to cold after preparation of the abutment teeth is typical and usually resolves within a few days to two weeks. During this time it is worth avoiding very hard and sticky foods, and chewing on the untreated side. A persistent sensation that the bridge “gets in the way” on closing is a signal that something needs adjusting — this is usually a minor irregularity to be corrected at a review appointment, but if left unaddressed it can overload the abutment.
A decision tree — what the choice actually depends on
The order of questions in the surgery usually looks like this:
- Step 1. Are there any general or local contraindications? Active caries, untreated gingivitis or periodontitis and poor plaque control postpone prosthodontic work until the underlying condition has been treated. With implant-based solutions, systemic disease, smoking and current medication also matter — particularly bisphosphonates and other drugs affecting bone.
- Step 2. How many teeth are missing? A single missing tooth opens all three pathways. Two or more adjacent missing teeth practically rule out a resin-bonded bridge, and with longer edentulous spans implant support becomes the solution of choice.
- Step 3. What condition are the adjacent teeth in? If they are intact, a resin-bonded bridge or an implant becomes the priority. If they have extensive fillings, or have been root treated and require a crown in any case, a conventional bridge ceases to be a waste of tissue and becomes a rational solution.
- Step 4. Are the bony conditions suitable for an implant? Sufficient bone volume and the absence of general contraindications shift the indication towards an implant-supported bridge. Their absence means either bone reconstruction or a return to tooth-supported solutions.
- Step 5. Is bruxism present? Heavy clenching worsens the prognosis of resin-bonded restorations and increases the risk of technical complications in every variant. In such cases a protective splint is usually considered as a safeguard for the restoration, although the evidence for its effectiveness is limited.
- Step 6. How committed is the patient to oral hygiene? An implant-supported bridge demands the most consistent care. Without it, its advantage in durability melts away.
This is a simplification — a real decision also takes account of the occlusion, the patient’s age and the long-term plan. We explore the comparison between an implant and a bridge in a separate article: dental implant or bridge — which is better.
A flag system — when to contact the practice
Problems with a bridge rarely begin with pain. Many develop without symptoms, which is why it is worth knowing the signs that warrant a response.
Red flag — urgent contact with the practice: the same day if swelling of the gum or cheek has appeared, or if purulent discharge is coming from around the bridge — and with swelling involving the face, fever, or difficulty swallowing or breathing, seek immediate help; within 1–2 days if the bridge has become mobile or has come out, or if spontaneous pain or pain on biting on an abutment tooth has appeared. A mobile bridge on prepared teeth is particularly urgent — caries develops quickly and without symptoms beneath a loosened crown.
Orange flag — an appointment within 1–2 weeks: the gum around the bridge bleeds on brushing; an unpleasant odour or taste persists in one place; floss begins to fray when drawn through, suggesting a cavity or a marginal defect; a sensation of food packing has appeared.
Yellow flag — report at your next review: minor ceramic chipping without sharp edges; sensitivity persisting longer than two to three weeks after cementation; a sense that the occlusion does not “settle” quite right.
Whatever the symptoms, review appointments remain part of treatment rather than an optional extra — and this applies to every fixed restoration. The typical interval is six months, but the clinician sets it individually on the basis of the patient’s caries and periodontal risk; with good hygiene and low risk it may be longer, with high risk shorter. At such an appointment the marginal integrity, the condition of the gum around the abutments and the way the space beneath the pontic is being cleaned are all assessed.
Oral hygiene — what really changes day to day
All types of dental bridges create a space that a toothbrush alone will not clean: the area beneath the pontic. Dental plaque accumulates there regardless of the type of construction, and it is plaque, rather than the material itself, that most often determines how long the restoration will serve.
With conventional bridges the risk concerns secondary caries at the margin between crown and tooth — a site the patient cannot see. With implant-supported bridges the threat is peri- implantitis (inflammation of the tissues around the implant, including the bone that supports it). It develops without pain and long goes unnoticed, which is why it is usually detected only at a review appointment.
The daily minimum looks like this: brushing twice a day; once a day cleaning the space beneath the pontic with floss with a stiffened end or with an interdental brush of the appropriate size; and, with implant-supported constructions, an oral irrigator in addition. The irrigator is an adjunct, not a substitute for mechanical cleaning — a jet of water alone does not remove mature plaque. It is worth practising the technique once with a hygienist, because performed incorrectly it gives an illusion of effectiveness.
Questions worth asking at the consultation
The prosthodontic consultation is the point at which the patient has the greatest influence over the subsequent course of treatment. The list below helps you leave the surgery with a realistic picture of the situation, rather than merely the name of a procedure — particularly when several types of dental bridges are under consideration at once.
- Do my adjacent teeth need restoring irrespective of the bridge? This question settles whether preparation is a loss of tissue or a means of saving it.
- What alternatives do I have, and why is this one being proposed first?
- How much of my own tooth tissue will I lose with this solution, and is it reversible?
- What happens if this construction fails in a few years’ time — what options will I have then?
- Do my occlusion or my clenching affect the prognosis, and do I need a protective splint?
- How many appointments does the treatment involve, and what will I be wearing in the interim?
- Exactly how should I clean this restoration, and can I practise it here in the surgery?
- How often should I attend for review?
What the research has not yet settled
An overview must indicate the limits of current knowledge. The best documented restorations today are single crowns — both tooth-supported and implant-supported — and among bridges, those supported by implants. All of this comes from short observations, usually from one to five years. Data on the behaviour of bridges made from modern materials over fifteen years or more are very scarce, because these materials have been in widespread use for too short a time. Direct comparisons of the three types discussed here within a single study are also lacking.
The practical conclusion is this: figures from research help to compare solutions, but they will not replace a diagnosis. In the majority of patients, success is determined by accurate selection of indications and consistent oral hygiene, rather than by the choice of material alone.
Frequently asked questions
How long does it take to make a dental bridge?
A conventional bridge is usually made over three appointments spread across several weeks, and a resin-bonded bridge may be ready after two. An implant-supported bridge requires considerably more time: after the implants have been placed, a period of healing is needed, most often from three to six months, before the definitive prosthodontic restoration is made.
Does fitting a bridge hurt?
The procedure is carried out under local anaesthesia, so the patient feels no pain during preparation. After the abutment teeth have been prepared, transient sensitivity to cold may appear, usually resolving within a few days to two weeks. After implant placement, swelling and discomfort may persist for several days — their intensity depends on the extent of the procedure, and standard analgesics are usually sufficient.
How long will a dental bridge last?
It depends on the type and on oral hygiene. In three-year observations, resin-bonded bridges remained in service in just under 9 out of 10 cases (the data relate to restorations, not patients). Implant-supported restorations very rarely failed in observations of up to five years. Data covering periods of ten to fifteen years for modern materials are still lacking.
Do healthy teeth have to be prepared?
Not always. Only a conventional bridge requires circumferential preparation. A resin-bonded bridge most often confines preparation to enamel, and an implant-supported bridge does not involve the adjacent teeth at all. If the potential abutment teeth are intact, it is worth asking your clinician to discuss these two less invasive solutions.
Who is a bridge for, and who is an implant for?
A tooth-supported bridge may be indicated when the abutments require crowns in any case, or when the bony conditions rule out a surgical procedure. An implant is usually more advantageous where the adjacent teeth are healthy, because it leaves them untouched. The final decision depends on the individual diagnosis, including assessment of the images from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
How much does a dental bridge cost?
The cost depends on the type of construction, the number of teeth being replaced and the material used, and with implant-based solutions also on the extent of the procedure and any bone reconstruction. A reliable estimate can only be given after examination and diagnostic imaging, because the treatment plan is often substantially modified in their light.
What should I do if the bridge loosens or comes out?
Keep the restoration and contact the practice within one to two days. It must not be re-attached at home with any available adhesive, as this makes correct seating impossible. A debonded resin-bonded bridge can often be re-attached, and exposed abutment teeth require prompt protection against caries.
Can caries develop beneath a bridge?
Yes, and it is one of the most common causes of treatment failure. Secondary caries arises at the margin between crown and abutment tooth, produces no symptoms for a long time, and the patient cannot see it. Thorough cleaning of the margins of the restoration and regular reviews are therefore decisive here.
How should the space beneath the pontic be cleaned?
The mainstay is dental floss with a stiffened end, drawn beneath the pontic once a day, or an interdental brush of the appropriate size. An oral irrigator is an adjunct rather than a substitute for mechanical cleaning, because a jet of water alone does not remove mature plaque. It is worth practising the technique once with a hygienist, because performed incorrectly it gives only an illusion of effectiveness.
Can a bridge be replaced with an implant in the future?
Yes, though not always without consequences. Abutment teeth prepared for a conventional bridge remain prepared after it has been removed and require further prosthodontic restoration. With a resin-bonded bridge, moving to an implant-based solution is usually simpler, because the adjacent teeth have not been prepared for crowns and the tissue loss was confined to enamel — they therefore do not require prosthodontic restoration.
Summary
The three types of dental bridges are, in essence, three different answers to the question of what to pay with in order to replace a missing tooth. A conventional bridge pays with irreversibly prepared tissue of the abutment teeth and makes sense above all when those teeth require a crown in any case. A resin-bonded bridge spares tissue but accepts a higher risk of debonding — although its failure is usually reversible. An implant-supported bridge leaves the adjacent teeth untouched and has the best documented outcomes over observations of several years, but requires surgery, time and consistent oral hygiene.
The choice between them is settled not at the level of material, but at the level of diagnosis: the condition of the adjacent teeth, the number of missing teeth, the bony conditions and the patient’s actual hygiene habits. What remains with the patient after treatment — daily cleaning of the space beneath the pontic and responding to early warning signs — weighs no less in practice than the choice of construction itself.
Read more:
- Prosthodontics — Warsaw (clinic services)
- Implant-supported bridge — the treatment step by step
- Dental implant or bridge — which is better for a single missing tooth
- Price list
Content and liability disclaimer
This article is informational and educational in nature and does not constitute medical advice, a diagnosis or a therapeutic recommendation — it does not replace a consultation with a specialist. If you are experiencing symptoms, have doubts or are facing a decision about treatment, consult a dentist. The methods described and the data cited are general in nature. The results of scientific studies relate to populations, not to an individual patient. The course and outcome of therapy depend on the individual clinical situation and may vary between patients. No information contained in this article constitutes a guarantee of result. The content has been prepared with due care, based on publicly available medical knowledge and the scientific publications indicated in the Sources section. We do not advise taking or refraining from any health-related action solely on the basis of the content of this article, without prior consultation with a doctor.
Sources
Source 1
Links https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105140 │ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38901823/
Description Lam WYH, Lim TW, Yu Yon MJ, Chau JMH, Lai GCH, Wang DCP, Botelho MG. „Posterior two-unit cantilevered zirconia resin-bonded fixed partial dentures: A 3-year prospective single-arm clinical trial.” Journal of Dentistry. 2024;147:105140.
Source 2
Links https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13575 │ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35929416/
Description Kim W, Li XC, Bidra AS. „Clinical outcomes of implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns and fixed partial dentures: A systematic review.” Journal of Prosthodontics. 2023;32(2):102-107.
Source 3
Links https://doi.org/10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_21_00081 │ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34615842/
Description Leitão CIMB, Fernandes GVO, Azevedo LPP, Araújo FM, Donato H, Correia ARM. „Clinical performance of monolithic CAD/CAM tooth-supported zirconia restorations: systematic review and meta-analysis.” Journal of Prosthodontic Research. 2022;66(3):374-384.
Source 4
Links https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.11.013 │ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36564291/
Description Lemos CAA, Verri FR, de Luna Gomes JM, Santiago Junior JF, Miyashita E, Mendonça G, Pellizzer EP. „Survival and prosthetic complications of monolithic ceramic implant-supported single crowns and fixed partial dentures: A systematic review with meta-analysis.” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2024;132(6):1237-1249.
Source 5
Links https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13863 │ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34642991/
Description Pjetursson BE, Sailer I, Latyshev A, Rabel K, Kohal RJ, Karasan D. „A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns.” Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2021;32 Suppl 21:254-288.
Source 6
Links https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02375.x │ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22211303/
Description Tan WL, Wong TLT, Wong MCM, Lang NP. „A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans.” Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2012;23 Suppl 5:1-21.
Source 7
Links https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.10.006 │ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30355509/
Description Reissmann DR, Wolfart S, John MT, Marré B, Walter M, Kern M i wsp. „Impact of shortened dental arch on oral health-related quality of life over a period of 10 years — A randomized controlled trial.” Journal of Dentistry. 2018;80:55-62.
Source 8
Links https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.124094 │ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12070513/
Description Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA. „Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth.” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2002;87(5):503-509.
Source 9
ISBN: 978-0-86715-475-7 │ https://www.quintessence-publishing.com/gbr/en/product/fundamentals-of-fixed-prosthodontics
Description Shillingburg HT, Sather DA, Wilson EL, Cain JR, Mitchell DL, Blanco LJ, Kessler JC. „Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics.” Wyd. 4. Quintessence Publishing, 2012 — rozdział o doborze zębów filarowych i biomechanice przęsła.