Key result
Monolithic PEEK transfers more stress to cement but is safer for dentin than zirconia.
Why the study?
Difference in elastic modulus between zirconia and dentin may cause unfavorable stresses on dental abutments, and a high performance polymer with similar elastic modulus was introduced to enhance stress distribution.
Does monolithic ceramic reinforced PEEK improve stress distribution compared to monolithic zirconia in fixed dental prostheses?
Does monolithic ceramic reinforced PEEK improve stress distribution compared to monolithic zirconia in fixed dental prostheses?
While both PEEK and zirconia can withstand posterior chewing forces, PEEK transfers more stress to the cement layer, potentially reducing its lifespan, though it may be safer for underlying dentin under oblique loads.
In vitro stress data on PEEK versus zirconia FDPs should not guide clinical material choice; leaves open need for clinical trials.
Background: Difference in the elastic modulus between zirconia and dentin may cause unfavorable stresses on dental abutments. A high performance polymer has been recently introduced with similar elastic modulus in attempts to enhance stress distribution. Aim of the study: To compare the stress distribution, on abutment teeth, of CAD/CAM milled PEEK to Zirconia Fixed Dental Prosthesis Materials and methods: Two three unit bridges were fabricated to replace a lower 2nd premolar on a stainless steel master model. A finite element analysis was done by 3D modeling of the two fixed dental prosthesis. Eight FDP models were simulated models and divided into two equal (n=4) according to the type of material used: Group Zr, monolithic zirconia and Group P, monolithic ceramic reinforced PEEK. The simulated models received a compressive load of 100N and an oblique load of 50 N at the pontic. The resultant stress ratios and deformations were analyzed by using ANSYS ®. Results: PEEK showed high von misses stresses and total deformation in the cement layer. Both restoration materials showed extreme stress values at the dentin interface under oblique loading. Conclusions: From a biomechanical perspective, PEEK transfer more stresses to the underlying cement layer. Under oblique loading, PEEK is generally safer to the underlying dentin than zirconia. Clinical implications: According to the current study, both materials can withstand chewing forces in the posterior region. However, PEEK restorations showed enhanced stress transfer which could lead to a shorter lifetime for the underlying cement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Faisal et al. (2023) studied Fixed Dental Prosthesis (in vitro models) (n=8). Monolithic ceramic reinforced PEEK vs. Monolithic zirconia was evaluated on Stress distribution and total deformation. Under oblique loading, monolithic PEEK fixed dental prostheses transferred more stress to the underlying cement layer but were generally safer for the underlying dentin compared to zirconia.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: