Bonding Surface of Ceramic Cantilever Bridges: Canine Versus Central Incisor.

PURPOSE: To compare single-retainer ceramic cantilever bridges replacing maxillary lateral incisors according to the abutment tooth used (maxillary canine [UC] or maxillary central incisor [UCI]), with particular focus on bonding surface area and connector-related morphometric variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective clinical study included 86 single-retainer ceramic cantilever bridges replacing a missing maxillary lateral incisor in 61 patients. All restorations were done by two experienced operators and a single laboratory workflow. Digital files were analyzed with Catia V5 (Dassault System, France) to isolate the intaglio surface of the retainer and to measure bonding surface area, connector dimension, connector base, and connector height. Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS (v. 31, IBM). Operator effect was assessed first; pooled comparisons between support-tooth groups were conducted using Welch and Mann- Whitney tests. RESULTS: Forty-four restorations were supported by a canine and 42 by a central incisor. After pooling operators, bonding surface area was significantly greater in the maxillary central incisor (UCI) group than in the maxillary canine (UC) group (70.13 ± 9.83 mm² vs 57.64 ± 11.56 mm²; p < 0.001). No significant between-group differences were found for connector dimension (p = 0.662), connector base (p = 0.623), or connector height (p = 0.736). Exploratory analyses showed no operator-related difference in the UC group, whereas in the UCI group connector dimension and connector base differed significantly between operators (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this retrospective study, the maxillary central incisor offered a significantly larger bonding surface than the maxillary canine for single-retainer ceramic cantilever bridges, whereas connector geometry remained comparable between abutment groups.