The choice of the proper restorative material is essential for the long-term success of implant-supported rehabilitations. This study aimed to analyze and compare the mechanical properties of four different types of commercial abutment materials for implant-supported restorations. These materials included: lithium disilicate (A), translucent zirconia (B), fiber-reinforced polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (C), and ceramic-reinforced polyether ether ketone (PEEK) (D). Tests were carried out under combined bending–compression conditions, which involved applying a compressive force tilted with respect to the abutment axis. Static and fatigue tests were performed on two different geometries for each material, and the results were analyzed according to ISO standard 14801:2016. Monotonic loads were applied to measure static strength, whereas alternating loads with a frequency of 10 Hz and a runout of 5 × 106 cycles were applied for fatigue life estimation, corresponding to five years of clinical service. Fatigue tests were carried out with a load ratio of 0.1 and at least four load levels for each material, and the peak value of the load levels was reduced accordingly in subsequent levels. The results showed that the static and fatigue strengths of Type A and Type B materials were better than those of Type C and Type D. Moreover, the fiber-reinforced polymer material, Type C, showed marked material–geometry coupling. The study revealed that the final properties of the restoration depended on manufacturing techniques and the operator’s experience. The findings of this study can be used to inform clinicians’ choice of restorative materials for implant-supported rehabilitation, considering factors such as esthetics, mechanical properties, and cost.