Removable Partial Dentures with Polyetheretherketone Framework: The Influence on Residual Ridge Stability

Abstract

Purpose: To provide, in a clinical case-control study, 1-year data on edentulous residual ridge dimensional changes for patients wearing removable partial dentures (RPD) with Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) framework, fabricated with a digital workflow, and a control group of untreated patients. Materials and Methods: Ten patients were treated with PEEK RPD, and six controls were studied. Intraoral scans at baseline (T0) and after a median period of 1 year (T1) were superimposed, trimmed, and reoriented (T0r and T1r), moved to a metrology software, and realigned. A curve (C0) was then traced on T0r, along the residual ridge crest; its projection (C1) on T1r was obtained. The mean distance C0-C1 was the dependent variable of interest and represented the 1-year changes in the height of the edentulous ridge. In addition, mean 3D distance between T0 and T1 at each edentulous area was measured. Differences in these outcomes measured between RPD treated and control groups were statistically assessed. Results: Twenty-six and 14 edentulous areas were investigated in the RPD treated and control groups, respectively. No significant differences were observed for potentially confounding variables, such as median follow-up time (12.5 vs. 13 months, respectively), the alignment accuracy between T0r and T1r (0.01 mm vs. 0 mm, respectively), the median number of remaining teeth (6 vs. 8.5, respectively), and the median length of edentulous areas (25.5 mm vs. 22.8 mm, respectively). For the outcomes of interest, no statistically significant difference was seen in the mean distance between C0 and C1 (i.e., changes in residual ridge height: −0.39 ± 0.52 mm vs. −0.52 ± 0.54 mm, respectively) or in the mean 3D distance at corresponding points of the denture bearing areas (−0.3 ± 0.46 mm vs. −0.4 ± 0.35, respectively). Conclusions: Although 1 year is a relatively short observation period, this clinical study shows that there are no short-term differences in edentulous residual ridge height and overall dimensions between patients wearing PEEK RPD, fabricated with a digital workflow, and controls without an RPD.

Insufficient Evidence to Ascertain the Long-Term Survival of PEEK Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies

“…The reasons for their exclusion are provided in Table 1. Therefore, 12 studies were deemed suitable for inclusion in this review [20,24,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. No additional studies were found upon hand searching, and none was found within the references of the included studies.…”

“…Eight of the included studies were case reports [20,[33][34][35][36][37][38]40], two studies were cohort studies [24,39], one study was a randomised controlled trial (RCT) [41] and another one was a case-control study [42]. Case reports documented six patients who received single PEEK prostheses [20,[33][34][35][36][37][38]40].…”

“…Case reports documented six patients who received single PEEK prostheses [20,[33][34][35][36][37][38]40]. The number of patients in the other studies ranged from 15 to 43 [24,39,41,42]. The age range of the patients ranged from 32 to 85 years [20,24,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]42].…”

“…The number of patients in the other studies ranged from 15 to 43 [24,39,41,42]. The age range of the patients ranged from 32 to 85 years [20,24,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]42]. The mean age was calculated as 59.96 years [20,24,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]42] while, in one study, the age of the patients was not reported [41].…”

“…The age range of the patients ranged from 32 to 85 years [20,24,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]42]. The mean age was calculated as 59.96 years [20,24,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]42] while, in one study, the age of the patients was not reported [41]. BioHPP PEEK was used to construct prostheses in five studies [24,34,36,38,40].…”