Fracture load and failure types of different veneered polyetheretherketone fixed dental prostheses

Taufall, Simon; Eichberger, Marlis; Schmidlin, Patrick R.; Stawarczyk, Bogna

doi:10.1007/s00784-016-1777-4

Cited by 60 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, adding TiO 2 as inorganic filler particles also satisfies the optical properties for dental applications with PEEK and endorses extending the range of indications. For this reason, many studies have investigated the material regarding the relevant properties, e.g., wear resistance [6], fracture load [7,8,9], retention load and retention forces [10,11], hardness [12], flexural behavior [13], and discoloration [14]. PEEK has thus been proven to be a suitable material for fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) [15,16,17] and long-term restorations [4,6,10,11,12,13,18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bonding to Different PEEK Compositions: The Impact of Dental Light Curing Units

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the impact of different light curing units (LCUs) for the polymerization of adhesive system visio.link (VL) on the tensile bond strength (TBS) of different PEEK compositions. For TBS measurements, 216 PEEK specimens with varying amounts of TiO2 (PEEK/0%, PEEK/20%, PEEK/>30%) were embedded, polished, air abraded (Al2O3, 50 µm, 0.4 MPa), conditioned using VL, and polymerized using either a halogen LCU (HAL-LCU) or a LED LCU (LED-LCU) for chairside or labside application, respectively. After thermocycling (5000×, 5/55 °C), TBS was measured, and fracture types were determined. Data was analyzed using a 2-way ANOVA followed by Tukey–HSD, Kruskal–Wallis H and Mann–Whitney U tests as well as a Chi2-test and a Ciba–Geigy table (p < 0.05). Globally, the light curing units, followed by PEEK composition, was shown to have the highest impact on TBS. The HAL-LCUs, compared to the LED-LCUs, resulted in a higher TBS for all PEEK compositions—without significant differences between chairside and labside units. Regarding the different PEEK compositions, PEEK/20%, compared to PEEK/0%, resulted in a higher TBS when both, HAL-LCUs or LED-LCUs were used for labside application. In comparison with PEEK/>30%, PEEK/20% resulted in a higher TBS after using HAL-LCU for labside application. No significant differences were found between PEEK/0% and PEEK/>30%. HAL-LCU with PEEK/20% for labside application showed a higher TBS than HAL-LCU with PEEK/20% for chairside application, whereas LED-LCU with PEEK/>30% for chairside application showed a higher TBS than LED-LCU with PEEK/>30% for labside application.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bonding to Different PEEK Compositions: The Impact of Dental Light Curing Units

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When compared to titanium alloy, PEEK specimens showed less wear resistance in simulated brushing cycles . Thermal aging did not affect veneered PEEK 3‐unit FPD specimens . The results of these studies further suggest PEEK as the material of choice for fixed detachable hybrid implant FPDs.…”

Section: Definitive Abutments That Can Be Used With Titanium Fixturesmentioning

confidence: 76%

Use of High Performance Polymers as Dental Implant Abutments and Frameworks: A Case Series Report

Alrababah

Hamadneh

Alsalem

et al. 2017

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental implant abutments can be made of different materials including titanium, gold, zirconia, alumina, and polymeric materials. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is a high performance thermoplastic polymer that can be used as a dental implant abutment material. It has an elastic modulus comparable to bone and can reduce stress shielding. PEEK is a radiolucent material that can allow better radiographic imaging of peri-implant tissues and can be veneered with composite materials or bonded to ceramics. PEEK is widely used in orthopedic and spinal surgeries, and it possesses mechanical and biological characteristics that encourage its use as dental implant abutments. This article will review the use of PEEK in dentistry and in particular as a dental implant abutment and over implant framework. Clinical reports will be presented to suggest some uses of PEEK materials in implant dentistry.

show abstract

“…Apart from the good mechanical properties, the poor esthetics of the PEEK inlays has to be criticized with regard to a brownishgray color. In order to achieve a tooth-colored translucent appearance, veneering is necessary, whereas a digital veneering method presented the highest fracture load [36].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture load of 3D printed PEEK inlays compared with milled ones, direct resin composite fillings, and sound teeth

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The objective of this in vitro study was to investigate fracture load, fracture types, and impact of chewing simulation of human molars restored with 3D printed indirect polyetheretherketone (PEEK) inlays and compare these with milled indirect PEEK inlays, direct resin composite fillings, and sound teeth. Materials and methods A total of 112 molars with form congruent class I cavities were restored with (n = 16/group) 3D printed indirect PEEK inlays via fused layer manufacturing (FLM): (1) Essentium PEEK (ESS), (2) KetaSpire PEEK MS-NT1 (KET), (3) VESTAKEEP i4 G (VES), (4) VICTREX PEEK 450G (VIC), (5) milled indirect PEEK inlays JUVORA Dental Disc 2 (JUV), and (6) direct resin composite fillings out of Tetric EvoCeram (TET). Sound teeth (7) acted as positive control group. Half of the specimens of each group (n = 8) were treated in a chewing simulator combined with thermal cycling (1.2 million × 50 N; 12,000 × 5°C/55°C). Fracture load and fracture types of all molars were determined. Statistical analyses using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and two-way ANOVA with partial eta squared (η p 2 ) followed by Scheffé post hoc test, chi square test and Weibull modulus m with 95% confidence interval were computed (p < 0.05). Results ESS and TET demonstrated the lowest fracture load with a minimum of 956 N, whereas sound molars showed the highest values of up to 2981 N. Chewing simulation indicated no impact (p = 0.132). With regard to Weibull modulus, KET presented a lower value after chewing simulation than JUV, whereas TET had the highest value without chewing simulation. All indirect restorations revealed a tooth fracture (75-100%), direct resin composite fillings showed a restoration fracture (87.5%), and 50% of the sound teeth fractured completely or had cusp fractures. Conclusions All 3D printed and milled indirect PEEK inlays as well as the direct resin composite fillings presented a higher fracture load than the expected physiological and maximum chewing forces. Clinical relevance 3D printing of inlays out of PEEK via FLM provided promising results in mechanics, but improvements in terms of precision and esthetics will be required to be practicable in vivo to represent an alternative dental material.

show abstract

Fracture load and failure types of different veneered polyetheretherketone fixed dental prostheses

Cited by 60 publications

References 24 publications

Bonding to Different PEEK Compositions: The Impact of Dental Light Curing Units

Bonding to Different PEEK Compositions: The Impact of Dental Light Curing Units

Use of High Performance Polymers as Dental Implant Abutments and Frameworks: A Case Series Report

Fracture load of 3D printed PEEK inlays compared with milled ones, direct resin composite fillings, and sound teeth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About