Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Finite element analysis compares implant materials' performance in edentulous maxilla, suggesting optimal option for rehabilitation.
OBJECTIVE: This finite element analysis study aimed to compare the biomechanical performance of implants made from polyetheretherketone (PEEK), 30% short carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK (30% SCFR-PEEK), 60% continuous carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK (60% CCFR-PEEK), and titanium in a full-arch fixed implant restoration for the edentulous maxilla. METHODS: A three-dimensional finite element model of an edentulous maxilla was constructed from Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) data. The bone was modeled with a 2 mm cortical layer surrounding a cancellous core. Four implants supporting a full-arch prosthesis were simulated. Implants materials were assigned properties from literature (PEEK: 4.1 GPa; 30% SCFR-PEEK: 18 GPa; 60% CCFR-PEEK: 150 GPa; titanium: 110 GPa). Three occlusal loading conditions (centric, lateral, protrusive) were applied. The maximum von Mises stress values and stress distribution in the implants, cortical bone, and cancellous bone was analyzed. RESULTS: Implant stress was highest in 60% CCFR-PEEK, followed by titanium, 30% SCFR-PEEK, and PEEK. Cortical bone stress was lowest around stiff implants (60% CCFR-PEEK, titanium) and highest around PEEK and 30% SCFR-PEEK. The 30% SCFR-PEEK group showed the smallest implant-bone stress gradient and the most uniform stress distribution. CONCLUSION: The 30% SCFR-PEEK implant exhibited superior biomechanical compatibility for maxillary complete-arch rehabilitation. Its intermediate stiffness promoted physiological stress transfer to peri-implant bone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: