Fracture Resistance of Titanium and Ceramic-Reinforced Poly Ether Ether-Ketone Implant Abutments Supporting Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Crowns and Ceramic-Reinforced Poly Ether Ether Ketone (PEEK) Crowns

Authors

1 Dentist at Egyptian Ministry of Health, Cairo, Egypt

2 Professor, Crowns and Bridges Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.

3 Associate Professor, Crowns and Bridges Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt

Abstract

Purpose: The current study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance of titanium and ceramic-reinforced poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) implant abutment supporting monolithic lithium disilicate ceramic crown, and ceramic-reinforced poly ether ether ketone (PEEK) crowns. Materials and methods: Twenty-eight implant abutments (SKY Implant) were divided into Group I: Titanium implant abutment (control) and Group II: Ceramic-reinforced implant abutment (PEEK). Twenty-eight monolithic crowns were divided into: 4 Subgroups; Subgroup A (PEEK /PEEK), Subgroup B (E.max / PEEK), Subgroup C (PEEK / Metal) and Subgroup D (E.max /Metal). Restorations were cemented with adhesive resin cement (Panavia F2.0) on PEEK and titanium abutments. All fixed crown restorations were exposed to dynamic loading and thermocycling, followed by measuring the resistance to fracture. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni's post hoc tests (P≤.05) was used for analyzing the reproduced data of the study experiments. Data were presented as means ± Standard deviations. Results: E-max/Ti group showed the lowest resistance to fracture (1224.1±419.4N), followed by PEEK/Ti, (1482.5±215.9N), PEEK, E-max/PEEK (854.0±265.4N), and PEEK/PEEK (1481.5±383.7) successively. Conclusion: Titanium and Ceramic-reinforced poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) implant abutments can withstand the occlusal forces occurring in the premolar area and provide an adequate esthetic abutment for implants.

Keywords

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics