A premolar is missing at the end of the arch, or a lateral incisor is congenitally missing next to a healthy canine, and the patient does not want an implant. A cantilever bridge needs no surgery and leaves one neighbor uncut, yet many dentists have seen one come back with a loose retainer or a fractured abutment.
Cantilevers can last, in a narrower range of cases than end-abutment bridges. Below: survival data, case selection, design rules, what manufacturers allow, and how implant cantilevers compare.
Key Takeaways
- In a review of 13 studies, tooth-supported cantilevers had an estimated 81.8% survival at 10 years; only 63% were free of all complications.
- A second review estimated 10-year survival at 80.3% for cantilevers and 89.2% for end-abutment bridges.
- The most common complications were loss of pulp vitality (32.6%), loss of retention (16.1%) and abutment caries (9.1%).
- In 168 cantilevers, survival was 73.5% at 16 years on vital abutments and 52.3% at 18 years with at least one root-filled abutment.
- Ivoclar lists cantilevers as a limitation of use for IPS e.max CAD and Press; Ivoclar, Kuraray Noritake and Dentsply Sirona allow one cantilevered pontic in high-strength zirconia (10 to 15 mm² connectors, by product).
- Implant cantilevers reached 88.9% survival at 10 years in one review; another found more mechanical complications than without cantilevers.
Quick Answer
A two-unit cantilever works best for a small pontic, classically a maxillary lateral incisor on a vital canine, kept to a light centric contact and out of excursions. Cantilevers fail mostly through loss of retention, caries or abutment fracture, and more often on root-filled abutments. Elsewhere, Dentsply Sirona's Cercon ht instructions and Ivoclar's metal-ceramic manual call for at least two abutments, and Ivoclar lists cantilevers as a limitation of use for its lithium disilicate.
How Long Do Cantilever Bridges Last?
Estimated 10-year survival of tooth-supported cantilever bridges in a systematic review of 13 studies; 63% were free of all complications (Pjetursson et al., 2004).
In that review, loss of pulp vitality (32.6%) and abutment caries (9.1%) led the biological complications, and loss of retention (16.1%) and material fractures (5.9%) the technical ones; abutment fractures had a cumulative incidence of 2.9%. By 10 years, 2.6% of bridges had been lost to caries, 2.4% to abutment fracture and 1% to recurrent periodontitis. The complication estimates can overlap, so do not add them.
A later review by the same group found cantilevers below end-abutment bridges at 5 and 10 years (table below) and advised them only as a second option. Cohorts disagree: in 1,674 bridges from 40 Dutch general practices, a cantilever pontic did not affect survival, while in Walton's 515 metal-ceramic bridges, cantilevers, nonvital abutments and anterior abutments failed significantly more often.
| Study | What was studied | Follow-up | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pjetursson et al., 2004 (review) | Cantilevers, 13 studies | 10-year estimate | 81.8% survival; 63% complication-free |
| Pjetursson et al., 2007 (review) | Cantilever vs end-abutment | 5 and 10 years | 91.4% and 80.3% vs 93.8% and 89.2% |
| Hämmerle et al., 2000 | 115 cantilevers, 239 abutments | 5 to 16 years | Loss of retention 8%, caries 8%, fracture 3% of abutments |
| Decock et al., 1996 | 137 cantilevers | Up to 18 years | 30% failed |
| De Backer et al., 2007 | 168 cantilevers | 16 to 18 years | 73.5% (vital) vs 52.3% (root-filled abutment) |
| Rehmann et al., 2015 | 71 cantilevers, vital abutments | Mean 3.2 years | 93.0% at 5 years, 84.5% at 8 |
| Passia et al., 2019 | 34 veneered zirconia cantilevers | Up to 13 years | 52.5% survival, 22.5% success at 13 years |
What actually fails
In Hämmerle's cohort, 10% of initially vital abutments lost vitality, loss of retention made up more than half of the technical problems, and abutments next to the cantilever fractured twice as often as others. Leverage explains the loose retainers: a load on the pontic puts tension on the cement of the retainer farthest from it (Sharma et al., 2012). Among Decock's 41 failures, the most common reason was loosening with or without caries.
Anterior or Posterior: Where Do Cantilevers Work Better?
- Anterior: Himmel's 1992 review found one documented single-abutment exception: a maxillary lateral incisor on the canine. Goldfogel and Lambert's design for it avoids all occlusal contact on the pontic and adds grooves to the canine prep to resist rotation. For incisors, resin-bonded single-wing bridges have the strongest data (Mine et al., 2021); see our Maryland bridge guide.
- Posterior: 3M and Dentsply Sirona cap the pontic at premolar size, and lab data agree: all-ceramic cantilevers could not yet be recommended to replace a molar (Ohlmann et al., 2009), and a finite element model supported all-ceramic only for a cantilever no longer than a premolar (Eraslan et al., 2005).
- Jaw and side: Decock's mandibular cantilevers failed more often than maxillary ones, but not significantly; Rehmann found no significant effect of jaw or of a mesial vs distal pontic.
Who Is a Good Candidate?
A vital, well-supported abutment
Abutment vitality matters: De Backer's cantilevers did significantly worse with a root-filled, post-restored abutment, and Decock found the same. Himmel's review asks for long roots, acceptable alveolar support, and preps with adequate length and parallel walls. Reduced but healthy support can work: after periodontal therapy, 33 of 36 cross-arch bridges with multi-unit cantilevers had no periodontal or technical complications over 5 to 12 years (Laurell et al., 1991). Decock found no effect of crown length to bone ratio or prosthesis length ratio on failure.
One abutment or two?
The classic rule is two abutments, except for the lateral incisor on the canine. Dentsply Sirona's Cercon ht instructions require at least two abutment teeth for cantilevered pontics, and Ivoclar's metal-ceramic framework manual says the same. More is not always better, though: in Rehmann's series, bridges on two abutments had a longer mean survival time (9.6 years) than those on three or more (8.4 years); the authors suggest each abutment adds its own risk.
| Factor | Good candidate | Poor candidate |
|---|---|---|
| Abutment | Vital, sound, long root, retentive prep | Root-filled with a post; short clinical crown |
| Number of abutments | Two splinted; a canine alone only for a lateral incisor | One premolar or molar carrying a posterior pontic |
| Pontic | One pontic, incisor or premolar size | Molar-size pontic, or two pontics |
| Periodontium | Healthy, even if reduced, with regular recall | Untreated periodontitis, poor plaque control |
| Occlusion | Light centric on the pontic; guidance on natural teeth | Bruxism; pontic in guidance; excessive overbite |
| Material | High-strength (3Y) zirconia or metal-ceramic | Lithium disilicate; 4Y or 5Y zirconia |
How Should the Pontic, Occlusion and Connectors Be Designed?
Pontic: one tooth, premolar size at most
Where zirconia makers allow a cantilever at all, they allow one pontic (table below). Ivoclar's metal-ceramic manual says cantilevered pontics must be reduced in size.
Occlusion: light centric, nothing in excursions
Goldfogel and Lambert avoid all occlusal contact on a lateral incisor pontic, and Hochman's posterior pontics got a light occlusal contact (as summarized by Sharma et al.). In a 2024 lab study, oblique loading significantly lowered the failure load of monolithic zirconia cantilevers; the authors advise occlusal adjustment and monitoring. Sharma's review also advises against anterior cantilevers with excessive vertical overlap. Polish any adjusted zirconia (see High Crowns and Open Contacts).
Connectors: height first
In a finite element model of cross-arch cantilevers on reduced bone support, raising the connector between the last abutment and the cantilever from 3 to 4 mm cut peak stress by about 25%, and to 5 mm by about 48% (Manda et al., 2010). Manufacturer positions:
| Material (document) | Cantilever allowed? | Connector |
|---|---|---|
| IPS e.max ZirCAD LT, MO (Ivoclar IFU, 2026) | Yes, one pontic | 12 mm² (4 mm high, 3 mm wide) |
| IPS e.max ZirCAD Prime (same IFU) | Yes, one pontic | 12 mm², in the disc's dentin area |
| IPS e.max Zirconia (Ivoclar IFU, 2026) | Yes, one pontic | 10 mm² anterior, 15 mm² posterior; 15 mm² at the pontic recommended |
| IPS e.max ZirCAD MT, MT Multi, Prime Esthetic | Not listed (1 pontic, 3 units max.) | None given |
| KATANA ML, HT (Kuraray Noritake guide) | Yes, one pontic | 12 mm² or more |
| KATANA STML, UTML | No | None given |
| Cercon ht (Dentsply Sirona DFU) | One pontic up to premolar width, two abutments | 12 mm² |
| Lava Plus / Lava Esthetic (3M) | Lava Plus: one pontic, premolar or incisor, not in bruxism; Lava Esthetic: no | None given in documents we read |
| IPS e.max CAD and Press (Ivoclar IFUs) | No: a limitation of use | 16 mm² applies to approved 3-unit bridges only |
| Metal-ceramic (Ivoclar manual, 2024) | Design rules: two abutments, reduced pontic | No cantilever value; 3-unit posterior bridges: 3 x 5 mm to 2.5 x 3 mm (width x height), by alloy |
Kuraray Noritake's guide: "UTML and STML are not suitable for a cantilevered pontic bridge." Grades are explained in 3Y, 4Y and 5Y Zirconia Explained.
PFM, Monolithic Zirconia or Lithium Disilicate?
Metal-ceramic
In a randomized pilot trial, veneered zirconia and metal-ceramic cantilevers on two crowns had 50% and 75% survival at 9 years, not a significant difference among 16 examined patients; zirconia margins scored significantly worse. In lab tests, metal-ceramic cantilevers withstood significantly higher loads than veneered zirconia, and lithium disilicate significantly lower (Ohlmann et al., 2013).
Zirconia
Veneered zirconia posterior cantilevers with connectors of at least 3 x 3 mm reached 92% survival at 4 years (Wolfart et al., 2009), but 52.5% at 13 years in the same cohort, mostly lost to biological problems of the abutments. A 2026 meta-analysis advised caution with conventional zirconia cantilevers. For monolithic zirconia we found lab data only: 1,181 N under axial load, the highest of the zirconia groups and comparable to veneered cobalt-chromium, but lower under oblique load (Bömicke et al., 2024); 3Y cantilevers exceeded possible posterior chewing loads (Klotz et al., 2024). See our zirconia options.
Lithium disilicate
Ivoclar's current IPS e.max Press and IPS e.max CAD instructions (2026) list cantilever bridges under limitations of use and indicate bridges of three units, up to the second premolar as the terminal abutment. Keep IPS e.max for crowns, veneers, inlays and onlays.
How Do Implant-Supported Cantilevers Compare?
A review of five studies estimated 94.3% survival at 5 years and 88.9% at 10 for short-span implant cantilevers, with veneer fracture (10.3%) and screw loosening (8.2%) the most common 5-year complications. A 2024 meta-analysis found significantly more mechanical complications with cantilevers, without significant differences in implant survival or bone loss. For two units on one implant, a review called the design unwise posteriorly because of technical complications; a posterior case series reported 100% survival at a mean 6.5 years, but peri-implant mucositis in 89.3%. See our implant restorations.
Zirconia and PFM at Elegant Dental Laboratory
- Digital scans are reviewed before production, and every case is made in house by more than 35 technicians at our 7,000 sq. ft. facility at 2308 McDonald Ave, Brooklyn.
- Zirconia (solid, 9-layer, solid with buccal porcelain, zirconia coping with layered porcelain) and PFM in base and precious alloys.
- 5 business day standard turnaround on most restorative cases, rush options available, and up to a 7-year warranty on final restorations (policies and warranties).
- Submit a digital case or send a case: our own drivers pick up in the New York area (call to confirm), and UPS labels work anywhere. Call 877-335-5221.
Related Guides
- 3-Unit Bridge vs. Implant Crown in 2026: What the Evidence Says
- PFM vs. Zirconia Crowns in 2026: When Metal-Ceramic Still Makes Sense
- Zirconia vs. E.max: When to Use Each, With Prep and Cementation Tips
FAQ
Can a two-unit cantilever replace a missing premolar?
Cercon ht's instructions and Ivoclar's metal-ceramic manual require at least two abutments; Himmel's review documents one abutment only for a lateral incisor on the canine. Consider two splinted abutments, an implant or a resin-bonded design.
Can a cantilever bridge be made in e.max?
Ivoclar lists cantilever bridges as a limitation of use for IPS e.max CAD and Press.
Which zirconia should I prescribe?
A high-strength 3Y grade, such as IPS e.max ZirCAD LT or KATANA ML or HT, with a 12 mm² connector.
Should the pontic touch in centric?
Lightly at most, and never in lateral or protrusive movements.
Is a root-filled tooth an acceptable abutment?
It raises the risk: 52.3% survival at 18 years with a root-filled abutment, against 73.5% at 16 years.
Sources (39)
- 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 (cantilever FPDs). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(6):667-676. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01120.x
- Pjetursson BE, Brägger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18 Suppl 3:97-113. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01439.x
- Hämmerle CH, Ungerer MC, Fantoni PC, Brägger U, Bürgin W, Lang NP. Long-term analysis of biologic and technical aspects of fixed partial dentures with cantilevers. Int J Prosthodont. 2000;13(5):409-415. PubMed 11203663
- Decock V, De Nayer K, De Boever JA, Dent M. 18-year longitudinal study of cantilevered fixed restorations. Int J Prosthodont. 1996;9(4):331-340. PubMed 8957871
- De Backer H, Van Maele G, Decock V, Van den Berghe L. Long-term survival of complete crowns, fixed dental prostheses, and cantilever fixed dental prostheses with posts and cores on root canal-treated teeth. Int J Prosthodont. 2007;20(3):229-234. PubMed 17580450
- Rehmann P, Podhorsky A, Wöstmann B. Treatment Outcomes of Cantilever Fixed Partial Dentures on Vital Abutment Teeth: A Retrospective Analysis. Int J Prosthodont. 2015;28(6):577-582. doi:10.11607/ijp.4114
- Leempoel PJ, Käyser AF, Van Rossum GM, De Haan AF. The survival rate of bridges. A study of 1674 bridges in 40 Dutch general practices. J Oral Rehabil. 1995;22(5):327-330. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.1995.tb00780.x
- Walton TR. An up to 15-year longitudinal study of 515 metal-ceramic FPDs: Part 1. Outcome. Int J Prosthodont. 2002;15(5):439-445. PubMed 12375457
- Sharma A, Rahul GR, Poduval ST, Shetty K. Assessment of various factors for feasibility of fixed cantilever bridge: a review study. ISRN Dent. 2012;2012:259891. doi:10.5402/2012/259891
- Mine A, Fujisawa M, Miura S, Yumitate M, Ban S, Yamanaka A. Critical review about two myths in fixed dental prostheses: Full-Coverage vs. Resin-Bonded, non-Cantilever vs. Cantilever. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2021;57:33-38. doi:10.1016/j.jdsr.2020.12.002
- Himmel R, Pilo R, Assif D, Aviv I. The cantilever fixed partial denture: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;67(4):484-487. doi:10.1016/0022-3913(92)90077-n
- Goldfogel MH, Lambert RL. Cantilever fixed prosthesis replacing the maxillary lateral incisor: design consideration. J Prosthet Dent. 1985;54(4):477-478. doi:10.1016/0022-3913(85)90416-0
- Laurell L, Lundgren D, Falk H, Hugoson A. Long-term prognosis of extensive polyunit cantilevered fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;66(4):545-552. doi:10.1016/0022-3913(91)90521-w
- Randow K, Glantz PO. On cantilever loading of vital and non-vital teeth. An experimental clinical study. Acta Odontol Scand. 1986;44(5):271-277. doi:10.3109/00016358609004733
- Ohlmann B, Marienburg K, Gabbert O, Hassel A, Gilde H, Rammelsberg P. Fracture-load values of all-ceramic cantilevered FPDs with different framework designs. Int J Prosthodont. 2009;22(1):49-52. PubMed 19260427
- Eraslan O, Sevimay M, Usumez A, Eskitascioglu G. Effects of cantilever design and material on stress distribution in fixed partial dentures: a finite element analysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2005;32(4):273-278. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01429.x
- Manda M, Galanis C, Georgiopoulos V, Provatidis C, Koidis P. Effect of varying the vertical dimension of connectors of cantilever cross-arch fixed dental prostheses in patients with severely reduced osseous support: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;103(2):91-100. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60012-1
- Bömicke W, Rammelsberg P, Zenthöfer A, Ohlmann B. Clinical performance of zirconia-ceramic cantilever fixed partial dentures: Longitudinal nine-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled pilot study. J Prosthodont Res. 2019;63(3):334-339. doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2019.01.007
- Ohlmann B, Dittmar A, Rues S, Rammelsberg P. Comparison of fracture-load values of cantilevered FDPs. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013;71(3-4):584-589. doi:10.3109/00016357.2012.700061
- Wolfart S, Harder S, Eschbach S, Lehmann F, Kern M. Four-year clinical results of fixed dental prostheses with zirconia substructures (Cercon): end abutments vs. cantilever design. Eur J Oral Sci. 2009;117(6):741-749. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0722.2009.00693.x
- Passia N, Chaar MS, Kern M. Outcome of posterior fixed dental prostheses made from veneered zirconia over an observation period of up to 13 years. J Dent. 2019;86:126-129. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2019.05.032
- Ma Y, Xuan Y, Cheng W, Zhang S, Fu B. Clinical outcomes of zirconia dental restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2026;175:106974. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2026.106974
- Bömicke W, Boisserée P, Rammelsberg P, Rues S. Initial damage and failure load of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic posterior cantilever fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Investig. 2024;28(1):94. doi:10.1007/s00784-024-05501-z
- Klotz AL, Halfmann J, Rues S, Bömicke W, Rammelsberg P, Zenthöfer A. Fracture Resistance of Posterior Tooth-Supported Cantilever Fixed Dental Prostheses of Different Zirconia Generations and Framework Thicknesses: An In Vitro Study. Materials (Basel). 2024;17(1):263. doi:10.3390/ma17010263
- Zhang Y, Lawn BR. Novel Zirconia Materials in Dentistry. J Dent Res. 2018;97(2):140-147 (zirconia grades by product). doi:10.1177/0022034517737483
- Kongkiatkamon S, Rokaya D, Kengtanyakich S, Peampring C. Current classification of zirconia in dentistry: an updated review. PeerJ. 2023;11:e15669. doi:10.7717/peerj.15669
- Aglietta M, Siciliano VI, Zwahlen M, Brägger U, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(5):441-451. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01706.x
- Kondo Y, Sakai K, Minakuchi H, Horimai T, Kuboki T, Atsuta I. Implant-supported fixed prostheses with cantilever: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent. 2024;10(1):57. doi:10.1186/s40729-024-00573-8
- Van Nimwegen WG, Raghoebar GM, Tymstra N, Vissink A, Meijer HJA. How to treat two adjacent missing teeth with dental implants. A systematic review on single implant-supported two-unit cantilever FDP's and results of a 5-year prospective comparative study in the aesthetic zone. J Oral Rehabil. 2017;44(6):461-471. doi:10.1111/joor.12507
- Jensen-Louwerse C, Sikma H, Cune MS, Guljé FL, Meijer HJA. Single implant-supported two-unit cantilever fixed partial dentures in the posterior region: a retrospective case series with a mean follow-up of 6.5 years. Int J Implant Dent. 2021;7(1):78. doi:10.1186/s40729-021-00361-8
- Ivoclar. IPS e.max ZirCAD labside Instructions for Use, Rev. 3, 2026-02-11 (indications; minimum thicknesses and connector dimensions). Ivoclar eIFU
- Ivoclar. IPS e.max Zirconia Instructions for Use, Rev. 0, 2026-04-27 (cantilever bridges: connector dimensions). Ivoclar eIFU
- Ivoclar. IPS e.max Press Instructions for Use, Rev. 2, 2026-01-08 (indications; limitations of use). Ivoclar eIFU
- Ivoclar. IPS e.max CAD Instructions for Use, Rev. 5, 2026-02-11 (indications; limitations of use; connector dimensions). Ivoclar eIFU
- Ivoclar (M. Tauber). Framework Design Manual for metal-ceramic restorations, 2024 (connector cross-sections; cantilevered pontics). PDF
- Kuraray Noritake. KATANA Zirconia Technical Guide (connector cross sections; cantilevered pontics). PDF
- Dentsply Sirona. Cercon ht and Cercon ht Shaded Zirconia Directions for Use, Rev. 2, 2015 (indications; framework dimensions). PDF
- 3M Oral Care. Getting started with Lava Plus High Translucency Zirconia Disc (indications), 2015. PDF
- 3M Oral Care. 3M Lava Esthetic Fluorescent Full-Contour Zirconia: Frequently Asked Questions, 2017. PDF
Reviewed by Gary Fingerman, founder and CEO of Elegant Dental Laboratory, Brooklyn, New York (founded 2007). Last reviewed: September 28, 2026. Study values are from published research; indications and connector values are manufacturer data. Always follow the current instructions for use of the material you prescribe.
