Comparison of restorative options is frequently conducted on initial fee alone. A ten-year horizon produces a materially different ranking, and is the more relevant basis for a decision of this magnitude.
Implant
Highest initial cost. Documented survival rates exceed ninety per cent at ten years in appropriately selected patients. Requires no alteration of adjacent teeth.
Anticipated maintenance comprises periodic professional review and, in a minority of cases, replacement of prosthetic components. Peri-implantitis represents the principal long-term risk and correlates strongly with periodontal history and smoking.
Conventional bridge
Lower initial cost. Requires preparation of the two adjacent teeth, which is irreversible and, where those teeth are sound, represents a significant biological cost.
Published median survival is approximately ten years. Failure frequently involves one of the abutment teeth, with the consequence that a three-unit failure may result in the loss of two teeth rather than one.
No replacement
No initial cost. Costs accrue instead as bone resorption, drifting of adjacent teeth, overeruption of the opposing tooth and redistribution of occlusal load.
These are not hypothetical: they are the standard sequelae, differing between patients only in rate.
Ten-year comparison
When the probability of abutment failure and the biological cost of preparing sound teeth are included, the implant frequently emerges as the lower-cost option over a decade despite the higher initial fee. The bridge retains clear indications, particularly where adjacent teeth already require crowns.
The appropriate comparison incorporates expected maintenance, probability of failure and the consequences of that failure, rather than the initial fee in isolation.
To determine whether this procedure is indicated in your particular case, we invite you to request a clinical assessment.
