In vitro assessment of PEEK and titanium implant abutments: Screw loosening and microleakage evaluations under dynamic mechanical testing

Properties of polyetheretheretherketone (PEEK) implant abutments: A systematic review

“…Ortega-Martinez et al ., ( 31 ) evaluated 2 different implant abutments; PEEK and titanium grade 5 (control group). These were attached to hex-connected titanium implants and retightened after 10 minutes.…”

“…There is a possibility that thermal ageing may have impaired the integrity of the resin cement in load transfer. The same occurrence occurs in the study by Ortega et al ., ( 31 ); a large vertical displacement and plastic deformation was shown during the dynamic fatigue test, which resulted in loss of torque. The increase in material temperature also favours this loss.…”

“…However, there is no significant difference between the latter two ( p =0.001). In the article by Ortega et al ., ( 31 ) the mean fracture toughness takes values of 468.5 N for the Ti abutment and 200.4 N for the PEEK abutment. Fatigue tests were performed at 140 N with 1.2 million cycles, equivalent to 5 years of function, and there was no failure of these abutments.…”

“…It has been observed that PEEK acts as a “sacrificial material”; it absorbs all plastic deformation by breaking before the implant or internal screw. Whereas, in the case of titanium abutments, the plastic deformation is concentrated in the internal connection, thus compromising the viability of the implant after overloading ( 31 ).…”

“…It is widely accepted that the geometric structure of the material’s surface can directly proportionally regulate hydrophilicity and roughness, which synergistically affects cellular behaviour and osseointegration ( 23 ). Most polymers have a low surface energy, which makes them bionert materials.For this purpose, the surfaces are subjected to an abrasion process with air particles and acid treatment, thus stimulating osteoblastic activity and improving bone-to-implant contact (BIC) ( 31 ). They can also be modified with laser, and better fixation of gingival fibroblasts is obtained than on non-laser-modified surfaces, both in PEEK and Ti ( 24 ).…”