Removable partials to replace one tooth (except for an all-acrylic with
a palate) are generally considered a poor idea.  I've seen them work,
but they put some fairly strong forces on the adjacent teeth, and
swallowing is a risk for the so-called Nesbit appliances, esp. if
patients wear them to sleep (usually a bad idea for partials in any case).
    A fixed bridge may be an acceptable option esp. if the adjacent teeth
are periodontally healthy and relatively broken down, since the crowns
that hold the false tooth in place can be seen as strengthening those
teeth.  However, if those surrounding teeth aren't periodontally healthy
they are a poor risk for holding a bridge; and grinding down intact
teeth to hold a bridge is rather invasive itself.
    Yes, some implants fail, but at this point they are mostly highly
predictable.  Upper premolar area implants not infrequently require bone
grafting, and sometimes what is called a "sinus lift".  This may be what
your dentist is referring to when he says it can be invasive.  All these
issues must be looked into when deciding which way to go.

Steve

I'm sorry but the whole "less invasive" thing is troubling me.  Bridges are
far more invasive in my books than an implant.  Prepping 2+ teeth to replace
a missing one is asking for trouble down the road.  An implant is superior
in everyway except for short-term cost.  I say short-term because years from
now when your bridge falls apart and is replaced you will end up paying more
than if you originally placed an implant.

jwn dds