Background: Different treatment options exist for replacement of an anterior tooth, and as implant-supported single crowns (ISSC) and resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis (RBFDPs) both are widespread treatment options, it is of clinical relevance to know which treatment modality can be considered superior. Purpose: The purpose of this comparative study was to evaluate the 3- and 5-year survival and failure rate of tooth-supported resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis compared to implant-supported single crowns. The null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in survival rate, occurrence of complications or patient-reported outcome between RBFDPs and ISSCs. Materials and Methods: A total of 45 resin-bonded FDPs were inserted in 27 young patients (test group) with tooth agenesis in the anterior part of the maxilla or mandible and a control group of 28 patients also with tooth agenesis in the anterior region but treated with 40 implant-supported single crowns were included in this study. All patients and treatments were followed with a baseline and a 3- or 5-year examination. All patients had to fill out an Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-49) questionnaire at baseline and at the 3- or 5-year examination. The restorations were evaluated according to the Copenhagen Index Score (CIS). Results: For the RBFDP (test) group there was an 82% survival rate and 18% failure rate, that is, four RBFDPs were not in situ after 3 years and four RBFDPs were not in situ after 5 years. Correspondingly, the ISSC showed a survival rate of 98% and a failure rate of 2%, that is, only one failure (ceramic fracture) after 3 and none after 5 years. Of the 82% RBFDPs in situ, there were no complications in 78% of the cases, whereas 22% had complications after 3 (4 complications) and 5 years (4 complications). There were 92% of the ISSCs without any complications and 8% (ie, 3 ISSCs) with complications after 3 or 5 years. In general, there was a significant reduction in the OHIP-49 scores, for example, an improved oral health quality of life for both treatment options. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that ISSCs have lower complication and failure rates than RBFDPs. In general, the OHIP-scores were significantly reduced regardless of whether RBFDPs or ISSC were used.