FP1 vs FP3: The Truth Behind the Marketing Hype

In this post, we want to clear up some confusion around one of the most talked-about topics in full-arch dental implant treatment — FP1 vs FP3 restorations. Many patients come to us after seeing videos online or hearing about “minimally invasive FP1” solutions. But is FP1 really for everyone? Let’s dive into what actually determines the right treatment and why personalized planning matters so much.

📞 The Patient Case

Recently, a patient reached out after watching several dental implant videos. He told us straight away, “I want FP1 — for both arches.” He had already done a lot of research — from McFadden’s videos to various FP1 and 3-on-6 cases online.

When we looked at his panoramic X-ray, we noticed significant bone loss in the upper jaw. While a panoramic gives us a general overview, a CBCT scan is essential for real evaluation — it shows bone volume, tissue quality, and jaw relationships in 3D.

Even with this initial X-ray, we could already tell: this wasn’t a straightforward FP1 situation.

🦴 Understanding Bone Loss and “Collapse”

Patients often don’t realize how much bone loss changes the foundation for implants and prosthetics. In this case, the patient had lost upper teeth, roots, and bone support — leading to what we call a collapsed bite.

When you lose teeth, you lose the vertical support that keeps your bite open. Over time, the jaws can “collapse,” changing facial proportions and creating less restorative space. Rebuilding that space — what we call restoring vertical dimension — often requires longer teeth and sometimes bone contouring.

This is one of the main reasons why FP1 isn’t always possible or ideal. You can’t fit a “teeth-only” solution into a space that no longer exists naturally.

😬 Aesthetics, Smile Lines & Functionality

A major factor in determining whether a patient is a candidate for FP1, FP2, or FP3 is the smile line — how high your upper lip goes when you smile.

• If you have a low smile line, we can sometimes mask imperfections, even with some bone loss.
• If you have a high smile line, the gum-tooth transition will show — and FP1 becomes risky aesthetically.

When the bone and gum peaks (called papilla) are missing, FP1 prosthetics can look unnatural — too square, too long, or asymmetrical. And when implants must be tilted to meet the jaw, it can compromise long-term health and even speech clarity.

Every millimeter matters in design — for your bite, your speech (“F” and “S” sounds), and your smile.

⚙️ FP1, FP2, FP3 – What’s the Difference?

Here’s a simplified breakdown:

• FP1: “Teeth only” prosthesis – natural-looking but limited to patients with minimal bone loss and perfect jaw relations.
• FP2: Slightly longer teeth with minor pink (gum) replacement – for moderate bone loss.
• FP3: Full-arch solution replacing both teeth and gums – ideal for patients with significant bone or tissue loss.

In reality, most patients — especially those with bone loss or missing multiple teeth — fall into FP3 territory. FP3 is more predictable, more durable, and easier to maintain long-term.

🧠 The Marketing Myth

Many online claims about “no bone removal FP1s” are misleading. Almost every FP1 involves some bone contouring, especially when symmetry or aesthetics are a concern.

The notion that “All-on-4 removes tons of bone, but FP1 doesn’t” is simply not true. In fact, many FP1 cases require more bone modification to achieve a natural tooth appearance.

Some clinics promote FP1 or 3-on-6 solutions as one-size-fits-all procedures — but dentistry doesn’t work like that. Every patient’s anatomy, smile line, and bite relationship are unique.

🧩 Material Matters: Zirconia Over Everything

We often recommend zirconia for its strength, hygiene, and aesthetics. It resists bacteria and lasts significantly longer than older materials like nanoceramics or acrylic hybrids.

However, zirconia still has minimum thickness requirements — if you make it too thin to “fit” an FP1 design, it becomes prone to fracture. So, the prosthetic design must balance aesthetics, structure, and function — not just fit a marketing label.

💬 The FP1 vs FP3 Reality Check

When we see marketing claims like “90% of patients qualify for FP1,” we know that’s not realistic. The truth is:

• FP3 applies to most real-world patients.
• FP1 is suitable for a small subset with ideal bone, bite, and smile conditions.
• Both can be successful — but only when chosen based on clinical reality, not advertising.

Ultimately, FP3 offers more consistent and predictable long-term results — especially in U.S. settings where patients often prefer immediate full-arch treatment.

🩺 Why In-Person Evaluation Is Essential

No dentist can accurately prescribe an FP1 or FP3 from a panoramic X-ray alone. A thorough in-person exam, CBCT scan, and jaw relationship analysis are mandatory to determine your ideal treatment plan.

Think of it like getting a custom suit: you wouldn’t send a selfie and expect a perfect fit. Your anatomy, bone condition, and facial proportions must guide the design.

🧭 Our Approach

At our clinic, we don’t push one solution. Whether FP1, FP2, FP3, or a hybrid design — we tailor everything to your bone anatomy, facial aesthetics, and long-term health.

“Don’t prescribe a treatment — treat the patient.”

That means we slow down, assess carefully, and build a personalized plan that ensures function, beauty, and durability — for life.

✨ Final Thoughts

FP1 is an excellent option — for the right patient. But it’s not a shortcut to avoid bone work or reduce cost. In many cases, FP3 remains the gold standard for longevity, predictability, and overall aesthetics.

Your smile deserves more than marketing. It deserves precision, planning, and purpose.