دورية أكاديمية

Stress distribution and fracture resistance of green reprocessed polyetheretherketone (PEEK) single implant crown restorations compared to unreprocessed PEEK and Zirconia: an in-vitro study.

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: Stress distribution and fracture resistance of green reprocessed polyetheretherketone (PEEK) single implant crown restorations compared to unreprocessed PEEK and Zirconia: an in-vitro study.
المؤلفون: Emam M; Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Organization of African Unity St, El-Qobba Bridge, Al Waili, 11566, Cairo, Egypt. marwaemam@asfd.asu.edu.eg., Arafa AM; Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef, Egypt.
المصدر: BMC oral health [BMC Oral Health] 2023 May 11; Vol. 23 (1), pp. 275. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 May 11.
نوع المنشور: Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
اللغة: English
بيانات الدورية: Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101088684 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1472-6831 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14726831 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Oral Health Subsets: MEDLINE
أسماء مطبوعة: Original Publication: London : BioMed Central, [2001-
مواضيع طبية MeSH: Dental Implants*, Humans ; Dental Stress Analysis ; Crowns ; Polyethylene Glycols ; Ketones ; Dental Materials ; Materials Testing ; Dental Restoration Failure ; Titanium
مستخلص: Background: It is unclear which crown materials are optimum to disperse the generated stresses around dental implants. The objective of this study is to assess stress distribution and fracture resistance of green reprocessed Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in comparison to un-reprocessed PEEK and zirconia single implant crown restorations.
Methods: Twenty crowns (n = 20) were obtained, five from zirconia and fifteen from pressed PEEK that were subdivided into 3 groups of five specimens each (n = 5) according to weight% of reprocessed material used. A 100% new PEEK was used for the first group, 50% new and 50% reprocessed PEEK were used for the second group, and a 100% reprocessed PEEK was used for the third group. Epoxy resin model with dental implant in the second mandibular premolar was constructed with strain gauges located mesially and distally to the implant to record strain while a load of 100 N was applied with 0.5 mm/min then specimens of all groups were vertically loaded till failure in a universal testing machine at cross head speed 1 mm/min. Data was statistically analyzed by using One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) followed by Post-hoc test when ANOVA test is significant.
Results: No significant difference between strain values of tested groups (p = 0.174) was noticed. However, a significant difference between fracture resistance values was noticed where the zirconia group recorded a significantly higher value (p < 0.001).
Conclusions: Implant restorative materials with different moduli of elasticity have similar effects regarding stresses distributed through dental implant and their surrounding bone. Reprocessed PEEK implant restorations transmit similar stresses to dental implant and surrounding bone as non-reprocessed PEEK and zirconia restorations. Zirconia failed at higher load values than all tested PEEK restorations but all can be safely used in the posterior area as crown restorations for single implants.
Clinical Relevance: Applying "green dentistry" principles may extend to include reprocessing of pressed PEEK restorative materials without affecting the material's shock absorption properties.
(© 2023. The Author(s).)
References: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000 Jul-Aug;15(4):571-82. (PMID: 10960992)
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020 Jun;22(3):397-402. (PMID: 32253824)
J Clin Exp Dent. 2018 May 01;10(5):e439-e444. (PMID: 29849967)
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2005 Apr;73(1):140-7. (PMID: 15742379)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021 Mar-Apr;36(2):332-340. (PMID: 33909724)
J Prosthodont. 2019 Jan;28(1):e342-e349. (PMID: 29654646)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000 Jan-Feb;15(1):15-46. (PMID: 10697938)
J Oral Rehabil. 2014 Oct;41(10):783-94. (PMID: 24889500)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Oct;17 Suppl 2:8-18. (PMID: 16968378)
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2013 Dec 1;33(8):4700-14. (PMID: 24094178)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995 Mar-Apr;10(2):188-98. (PMID: 7744438)
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91. (PMID: 17695343)
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Jan;121(1):101-109. (PMID: 30017162)
Dent Mater. 2017 Apr;33(4):427-433. (PMID: 28185678)
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Mar;119(3):437-445. (PMID: 28645667)
Dent J (Basel). 2019 Aug 01;7(3):. (PMID: 31374927)
J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Jul;114(1):59-66. (PMID: 25819357)
J Prosthodont. 2019 Feb;28(2):e649-e656. (PMID: 28872722)
J Prosthodont. 2023 Mar;32(3):259-266. (PMID: 35509150)
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Mar;22(2):763-771. (PMID: 28647864)
J Clin Diagn Res. 2014 Jul;8(7):ZM01-2. (PMID: 25177666)
J Oral Rehabil. 2003 Aug;30(8):818-22. (PMID: 12880406)
Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Jul;24(7):2415-2425. (PMID: 31686236)
J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Mar;115(3):321-8.e2. (PMID: 26548869)
Dent Mater. 2023 Jan;39(1):114-122. (PMID: 36566152)
J Dent. 2002 Sep-Nov;30(7-8):271-82. (PMID: 12554107)
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013 Oct;101(7):1209-16. (PMID: 23564476)
Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Dec;20(9):2493-2500. (PMID: 26979441)
Materials (Basel). 2022 Oct 06;15(19):. (PMID: 36234281)
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2021 Jan;25(1):24-34. (PMID: 33506889)
فهرسة مساهمة: Keywords: Dental implant; Fracture resistance; Green dentistry; Heat pressing; Modulus of elasticity; PEEK reprocessing; Strain; Stress; Zirconia
المشرفين على المادة: 31694-16-3 (polyetheretherketone)
S38N85C5G0 (zirconium oxide)
0 (Dental Implants)
3WJQ0SDW1A (Polyethylene Glycols)
0 (Ketones)
0 (Dental Materials)
D1JT611TNE (Titanium)
تواريخ الأحداث: Date Created: 20230511 Date Completed: 20230515 Latest Revision: 20230515
رمز التحديث: 20240829
مُعرف محوري في PubMed: PMC10173503
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-02943-x
PMID: 37170111
قاعدة البيانات: MEDLINE