PMMA vs. Zirconia in All-on-4 Bridges: Why We Prefer PMMA for Full-Jaw Restorations - By Dr Amir Mostofi DDS, Dip. (Ortho.) , MSc (Implant.)

​When considering All-on-4 implant bridges—a dental procedure where a full arch of teeth is supported by four implants—it's essential to choose the right material for the prosthetic teeth. Two commonly used materials are poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA, a type of acrylic) and zirconia (a type of porcelain). At our practice, we have chosen to use PMMA for full jaw construction implant bridges. Here's why:​

1. Aesthetics and Natural Appearance

High-quality PMMA teeth are typically crafted with multiple layers, allowing for a more natural and lifelike appearance. This layering technique enables dental technicians to mimic the translucency and shading variations found in natural teeth. In contrast, zirconia prosthetics are usually milled from a single layer, which can result in a more uniform and less natural look. Therefore, PMMA offers superior aesthetics, providing patients with a smile that closely resembles natural dentition. ​

2. Weight and Comfort

PMMA is a lightweight material, contributing to a more comfortable experience for patients. Zirconia, being denser, results in a heavier prosthesis. Some patients may find the additional weight of a zirconia bridge less comfortable, especially during the initial adjustment period. The lighter nature of PMMA can enhance overall comfort and adaptability. ​ All On Four

3. Occlusal Considerations

When zirconia is used for both upper and lower bridges, patients may experience a clicking sound due to the contact between two hard surfaces, similar to the sound of porcelain teeth clashing. This phenomenon can be distracting and may affect the overall satisfaction with the prosthesis. PMMA, being a softer material, does not produce such noises, leading to a more natural and quiet biting experience. ​ Dr. Sehmi

4. Repairability and Maintenance

One significant advantage of PMMA is its reparability. If a PMMA bridge chips or fractures, it can be easily and cost-effectively repaired without the need for extensive procedures. In contrast, zirconia bridges, while durable, are challenging to repair if damaged. A fracture in a zirconia prosthesis often necessitates the fabrication of an entirely new bridge, leading to increased costs and inconvenience for the patient. ​

5. Cost-Effectiveness

PMMA bridges are generally more affordable than their zirconia counterparts, making them an attractive option for patients seeking quality restorations without incurring high expenses. The lower cost does not compromise the aesthetic and functional outcomes, especially when considering the advanced layering techniques used in modern PMMA prosthetics. ​

Conclusion

While both PMMA and zirconia have their respective advantages, our practice has chosen to utilize PMMA for full jaw construction implant bridges due to its superior aesthetics, comfort, reparability, and cost-effectiveness. These factors align with our commitment to providing patients with natural-looking, durable, and affordable dental restorations.

For more information and a consultation visit, call us on 0190-821822 or visit our practice at 7 Chapel Road, Worthing BN111EG.