Dental Bridges

The bridge arrives complete. Abutments, pontics, material — no calls needed.

TrazaLab structures every bridge case so the lab knows bridge type, abutment and pontic teeth, connector design, material, and pontic form — before opening a single file.

4
bridge types
93-95%
5yr survival
0%
zirconia chipping
100%
digital Rx
Bridge Types

Four types. One platform.

Each bridge type has different clinical requirements. TrazaLab captures the right fields for each one — so nothing is assumed.

Conventional Fixed
Crowns cemented on natural abutment teeth with pontics replacing the missing tooth or teeth. The most prescribed bridge type worldwide.
93.8% survival at 5 years
Pjetursson et al. 2007 — PMID 17594374
Implant-Supported
Supported by dental implants instead of natural teeth. Preserves adjacent teeth from preparation. Higher survival rate than conventional.
95.5% survival at 5 years
Pjetursson et al. 2012 — PMID 23062125
Cantilever
Support on one side only — the pontic extends beyond the abutment teeth. Ideal for zones without a distal abutment, such as second molars.
91.4% survival at 5 years
Pjetursson et al. 2007 — PMID 17594374
Maryland (Adhesive)
Minimal preparation — bonded with resin-retained wings to the lingual surface of adjacent teeth. Excellent for anterior single-tooth replacement.
91.4% survival at 5 years
Pjetursson et al. 2004 — PMID 15533127
Platform

This is how a bridge case arrives at your lab

The surgeon fills out the bridge prescription in TrazaLab. You receive the complete case: bridge type, abutment and pontic teeth mapped, material, pontic design, connector type, shade, and all files attached.

No phone call. No WhatsApp audio. No guessing if the prep photos match the scan. Everything structured, everything in one place.

trazalab.com/orden/2187
Panel
Orders3
TrazaChat
Notifications
Bridge Rx — María García Bridge
Bridge Type
Fixed Conventional
Material
Monolithic Zirconia
Abutments
#19, #22
Pontics
#20, #21
Pontic Design
Modified Ridge Lap
Connector
Rigid
Shade
A2 — VITA Classical
Margin
Chamfer
scan_maxilar.stl
48.2 MB — STL
STL
prep_abutments.jpg
3.1 MB — Photo
IMG
shade_reference.jpg
2.4 MB — Photo
IMG
Materials

Materials: what the data says

Not marketing claims. Published systematic review data comparing the three main bridge materials.

Material Flexural Strength 5yr Chipping 5yr Survival Best For
Monolithic Zirconia 900–1200 MPa 0% 87.9–92.9% Posterior, bruxism, long spans
PFM 500–800 MPa 7.6% 91.3% Universal, proven track record
E.max (Lithium Disilicate) 360–400 MPa >10% 82.5% Anterior only, ≤3 units
E.max is NOT recommended for bridges >3 units in posterior zones. Framework fracture rates exceed 10% at 5 years. For posterior multi-unit bridges, monolithic zirconia or PFM are the evidence-based choices.
Source: Romandini et al. 2026 — PMID 41650383
Outcomes

Clinical data, not promises

Every number below comes from a peer-reviewed systematic review. Click the source to verify on PubMed.

0%
Conventional 5yr survival
Tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses, meta-analysis of 34 studies.
Pjetursson 2007 →
0%
Implant-supported 5yr survival
Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses, updated systematic review.
Pjetursson 2012 →
0%
Pulp vitality loss in abutments
Loss of vitality in abutment teeth after bridge preparation — a known clinical risk.
Pjetursson 2007 →
0%
Chipping in monolithic zirconia
Zero ceramic chipping events in monolithic zirconia bridges at 5 years.
Romandini 2026 →
Prescription Flow

The surgeon's prescription, step by step

Six structured fields. No free-text guessing. The surgeon selects, the lab receives — complete and validated.

1
Bridge Type
Fixed Conventional, Implant-Supported, Cantilever, or Maryland. Each type triggers different validation rules downstream.
2
Abutment & Pontic Teeth
Tooth numbers mapped individually. Example: #19, #22 abutments + #20, #21 pontics. No ambiguity about which teeth are prepared and which are replaced.
3
Pontic Design
Modified Ridge Lap, Ovate, Sanitary (Hygienic), or Conical. Each design has different tissue contact and esthetic implications.
4
Connector Type
Rigid or Semi-rigid. Affects the biomechanical behavior of the bridge under occlusal load. Rigid is default for most cases.
5
Material & Shade
Monolithic Zirconia, PFM, E.max, or other. Shade system (VITA Classical or 3D-Master) and specific shade selected from validated options.
6
Preparation Photos + Scans
Intraoral scans (.stl), preparation photos, shade reference photos, and bite registration — all attached to the case, not scattered across WhatsApp threads.
Quality Control

Validation before fabrication

10 bridge-specific checks the lab runs before milling or pressing. Structured in TrazaLab so nothing is missed.

Preparation & Fit
Abutment preparation taper within 4-8° range
Adequate occlusal reduction for selected material
Margin design matches prescription (chamfer/shoulder)
Pontic Space
Mesiodistal space verified on scan
Occlusal clearance sufficient for material thickness
Design & Occlusion
Pontic design appropriate for tissue condition
Connector cross-section ≥9 mm² (zirconia minimum)
Occlusal scheme verified against bite registration
Esthetics & Materials
Shade reference photo under calibrated light
Material validated for span length and zone
Tool

Bridge Calculator

Calculate survival rates, material recommendations, and clinical considerations for any bridge configuration. Based on published systematic review data.

Open calculator
Evidence

Scientific references

All clinical data on this page comes from peer-reviewed systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

1
Pjetursson BE, Brägger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18 Suppl 3:97-113. PMID 17594374
2
Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Schwarz F, Formal P, An S. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23 Suppl 6:22-38. PMID 23062125
3
Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Lang NP, Brägger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(6):625-642. PMID 15533127
4
Romandini M, et al. Monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2026. PMID 41650383
5
Pol CWP, Kalk W. A systematic review of ceramic inlays in posterior teeth: an update. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;24(6):566-575. PMID 28940725
6
Thalji G, Cooper LF. Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with monolithic zirconia: a clinical report. J Prosthodont. 2021;30(3):196-203. PMC7946345
Next step

Ready to receive your first bridge case?

Start with a bridge case. See how it feels when every field arrives filled, every file attached, and every question answered before you open CAD.