Materials reference

Bridge materials compared: PFM, ceramic, zirconia, gold.

Material is the single largest cost variable you control on a dental bridge. It also determines how the bridge looks, how long it lasts, and which tooth positions it can safely restore.

At-a-glance comparison

Material	Per unit	Aesthetics	Strength	Lifespan	Best for
PFM	$500 - $850	Good	High	10-15 years	Molars and premolars where strength matters more than aesthetics, and budget-conscious patients in any position.
CER	$650 - $1,100	Excellent	Medium	10-15 years	Incisors and canines where the bridge is visible.
ZIR	$700 - $1,200	Very good	Highest	15-20 years	Molars where strength is critical, and increasingly for front teeth with newer translucent multi-layer formulations.
AU	$600 - $1,020	Poor (gold colour)	High	20+ years	Back molars in patients who prioritise function over aesthetics, especially heavy bruxism patients where gold absorbs bite forces.

Porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM)

Molars and premolars where strength matters more than aesthetics, and budget-conscious patients in any position.

$500 - $850 / unit

$1,500 - $2,550 (3-unit) · 1.0x baseline

The workhorse for over forty years. A nickel-chromium or cobalt-chromium metal substructure provides strength while a porcelain overlay provides tooth-coloured aesthetics. Best balance of affordability and durability. The metal framework rarely breaks, and the porcelain layer can sometimes be repaired chairside.

Aesthetics

Good

Strength

High (~300-500 MPa flexural)

Lifespan

10-15 years

Advantages

Most affordable option at the 1.0x baseline
Strong metal framework with excellent structural integrity
Every dental lab can fabricate PFM
Best-supported by PPO insurance because it is the standard

Limitations

Dark metal line can show at the gum margin if gums recede
Nickel allergy affects 10-15% of women
Less natural in strong light than all-ceramic
Porcelain overlay can chip and expose metal

All-ceramic / porcelain

Incisors and canines where the bridge is visible. Patients who prioritise a natural look and accept the premium over PFM.

$650 - $1,100 / unit

$1,950 - $3,300 (3-unit) · 1.3x PFM

Made entirely of dental porcelain or lithium disilicate (e.g. IPS e.max), with no metal substructure. Translucency mimics natural tooth enamel under light. The aesthetic gold standard for front teeth.

Aesthetics

Excellent

Strength

Medium (~300-400 MPa flexural)

Lifespan

10-15 years

Advantages

Best aesthetics of any material, translucent and natural
No dark line at gum margin even with gum recession
Biocompatible, no metal allergies
Colour-matched precisely to surrounding teeth

Limitations

Less strong than zirconia, higher fracture risk on molars
More expensive than PFM (1.3x)
Not recommended for spans of four or more units
Requires more lab skill, fewer providers

Zirconia

Molars where strength is critical, and increasingly for front teeth with newer translucent multi-layer formulations.

$700 - $1,200 / unit

$2,100 - $3,600 (3-unit) · 1.4x PFM

Computer-designed and milled from a solid block of zirconium dioxide via CAD/CAM. The strongest non-metal dental material available, with flexural strength three to four times higher than all-ceramic porcelain. Newer multi-layered zirconia balances translucency with strength and is rapidly becoming the default for both front and back teeth.

Aesthetics

Very good

Strength

Highest (~900-1,200 MPa flexural)

Lifespan

15-20 years

Advantages

Strongest non-metal material, virtually fracture-proof in normal use
Excellent biocompatibility, no metal allergies
Computer-milled for precise fit, fewer chairside adjustments
Longest tooth-supported lifespan (15-20 years)

Limitations

Slightly more opaque than all-ceramic, though improving each generation
Highest cost at 1.4x PFM
Can wear opposing natural teeth if not properly polished
Difficult to adjust chairside

Gold alloy

Back molars in patients who prioritise function over aesthetics, especially heavy bruxism patients where gold absorbs bite forces.

$600 - $1,020 / unit

$1,800 - $3,060 (3-unit) · 1.2x PFM

The longest clinical track record of any dental material. Gold is gentle on opposing teeth (it wears at a similar rate to enamel), provides excellent marginal fit, and resists corrosion indefinitely. Rarely placed today on visible teeth because of colour, but it remains an excellent choice for back molars.

Aesthetics

Poor (gold colour)

Strength

High (excellent mechanical properties)

Lifespan

20+ years

Advantages

Gentlest on opposing teeth, minimal wear
Best marginal fit, lowest decay-at-margin risk
Extraordinarily durable, decades-long track record
Biocompatible for nearly every patient

Limitations

Gold colour unacceptable for most patients
Cost fluctuates with gold spot price
Increasingly rare, fewer labs offer gold work
Patients may feel self-conscious with visible gold

Picking by tooth position

Front upper (most visible)

All-ceramic or zirconia

Most visible teeth. All-ceramic gives the best translucency. Multi-layer zirconia is nearly as aesthetic and stronger. Budget option: PFM, accepting the dark-line risk.

Front lower

Zirconia or all-ceramic

Less visible than upper front but aesthetics still matter. Zirconia balances strength and appearance well.

Premolars (side teeth)

Zirconia or PFM

Moderate bite forces, partially visible. Zirconia is ideal. PFM is the budget choice and performs reliably.

Molars (back teeth)

Zirconia or PFM

Highest bite forces (150-200 lbs). Strength comes first. Zirconia is the strongest non-metal option. PFM is proven and affordable. Gold is excellent for grinders.

Budget is the priority

PFM

Lowest cost. Reliable strength and acceptable aesthetics in any position. Best PPO insurance support since it is the standard.

Continue reading

Cost overview Bridge types Front vs back teeth Care & maintenance