Table 1 In vitro studies included in the review
From: The use of PEEK in digital prosthodontics: A narrative review
Study (year) | Application | Materials tested | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|
Stawarczyk et al. (2015) [20] | FDPs | CAD-CAM milled PEEK Pressed pellet PEEK Pressed granular PEEK (n = 15/group) | Higher mean fracture load (2.354 N) for milled FPDs than those pressed from granular PEEK (1.738 N) |
Stawarczyk et al. (2013) [22] | CAD-CAM PEEK (n = 225) | Μean fracture load of 1383 N Plastic deformation starting approximately at 1200 N | |
Niem et al.(2019) [23] | CAD-CAM PEEK Zirconia Lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (n = 10/group) | PEEK exhibited higher modulus of resilience than lithium disilicate Comparable to that of gold alloy | |
Niem et al. (2019) [24] | CAD-CAM PEEK Ceramic Composite and Polymer-based materials (n = 10 /group) | Flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of PEEK not significantly influenced by thermocycling | |
Liebermann et al. (2016) [25] | PEEK Hybrid material Composite resins PMMA-based materials (n = 40/group) | PEEK demonstrated: The lowest solubility and water absorption Similar hardness parameters to PMMA-based materials | |
Taufall et al. (2016) [26] | CAD-CAM PEEK veneered with different methods (digital veneering, conventional veneering with crea.lign, conventional with crea.lign paste, and pre-manufactured veneers) (n = 30/group) | The digital veneering showed the highest fracture load resistance | |
Cekic-Nagas et al. (2018) [27] | CAD-CAM PEEK PMMA Composite resin and fiber-reinforced composite materials (n = 7/group) | Highest load bearing capacity for PEEK | |
Wimmer et al. (2016) [28] | CAD-CAM PEEK Nanohybrid composite PMMA-based material (n = 12/ group) | Significantly higher wear resistance for PEEK | |
Wachtel et al. (2019) [29] | IFDPs | CAD-CAM PEEK screw-retained crowns on titanium implants (n = 10) | Favorable fracture mode for PEEK compared to conventional materials Coronal displacement of bending points No screw loosening or veneer fracture |
Sirandoni et al. (2019) [30] | CAD-CAM PEEK PMMA Zzirconia Co-Cr Ti | Highest deformation for PEEK and PMMA frameworks that decreased von Mises stresses in the frameworks, implants and abutments PEEK exhibited critical tensile stress values in the trabecular bone | |
Nazari et al. (2016) [31] | CAD-CAM PEEK Zirconia Nickel-chromium alloy (n = 10/group) 3-unit IFDPs on two implants | Failure loads: Zirconia 2086 ± 362 N nickel-chromium alloy 5591 ± 1200 N PEEK 1430 ± 262 N | |
Elsayed et al. (2019) [32] | CAD-CAM PEEK Zirconia Lithium disilicate crowns supported by titanium and zirconia implant abutments (n = 8/group) | High fracture resistance of PEEK crowns, comparable to zirconia and lithium disilicate | |
Jin et al. (2019) [33] | CAD-CAM PEEK and titanium frameworks veneered with composite resin n = 20/group | PEEK exhibited Higher shear bond strength than Ti, good marginal fit and fracture resistance (1518 N) | |
Preis et al. (2017) [1] | CAD-CAM PEEK Zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramics Composite resins Zirconia (n = 8/group) | PEEK molar implant-supported crowns showed lower fracture resistance than zirconia crowns Total failure rate of PEEK screw-retained frameworks veneered with composite paste | |
Yilmaz et al. (2018) [34] | Seven different CAD-CAM HPPs 100% PEEK 80% PEEK with 20% filler 80% PEKK with 20% filler Ceramic reinforced PEEK Interlaced fiberglass and resin Fiber-composite material New generation cubic zirconia 3Y-TZP Zirconia | Higher fracture resistance for zirconia implant-supported frameworks with cantilevers than PEEK-based materials | |
Ghodsi et al. (2018) [35] | CAD-CAM PEEK Zirconia Composite (n = 12/group) | No clinically acceptable marginal gaps for PEEK No significant differences observed in retention forces | |
Zeighami et al. (2019) [36] | CAD-CAM PEEK Zirconia, Composite (n = 12/group) | Better marginal adaptation for zirconia than PEEK | |
Chen et al. (2019) [37] | RPDs | CAD-CAM PEEK Co-Cr Ti alloys | PEEK caused lower stresses on periodontal ligament and higher stresses on the mucosa |
Tribst et al. (2020) [38] | PEEK Polyamide Polyoxymethylene Gold alloy Titanium CoCr | Polyoxymethylene and PEEK exhibited the lowest retentive forces | |
Peng et al. (2019) [39] | PEEK CoCr alloy | No significant difference in the long-term deformation | |
Muhsin et al. (2018) [40] | CAD-CAM PEEK granular PEEK Co-Cr casting alloy (n = 10/group) | Higher retentive force for milled PEEK clasps than thermopressed clasps Higher retentive forces for PEEK clasps at deeper undercuts with a thicker clasp design than Co-Cr clasps after 3 years of fatigue simulation | |
Negm et al. (2019) [41] | CAD-CAM Milled PEEK Thermo-pressed PEEK (n = 10/group) | Higher fit and trueness for directly milled frameworks | |
Arnold et al. (2018) [42] | CAD-CAM Milled PEEK Cast metal frameworks with different techniques (n = 12/group) | PEEK RPD frameworks have better precision and fit than metal frameworks fabricated using different techniques | |
Hada et al. (2020) [43] | Complete denture framework | PEEK Fiber-reinforced composite Nano-zirconia cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy (n = 6group) | PEEK provides lower reinforcement than the other materials |
Emera et al. (2019) [5] | Double-crown-retained Removable Dental Prostheses | Zirconia or PEEK primary crowns Zirconia or PEEK secondary crowns | Telescopic attachments fabricated from zirconia primary crowns and PEEK secondary crowns exhibited the lowest stresses transmitted to the implants |
Schubert et al. (2019) [44] | Implant-supported zirconia primary crowns with electroformed secondary crowns or CAD-CAM PEEK secondary crowns (n = 10/group) | Stable retentive force values over 10 years of simulated aging for PEEK secondary crowns | |
Merk et al. (2016) [45] | Zirconia primary crowns Secondary PEEK crowns of different taper and manufacturing methods; milled from PEEK blanks; thermo-pressed from PEEK pellets; thermo-pressed from granular PEEK (n = 10/group) | Fabrication method and taper angle had no consistent effect on retentive forces within different groups | |
Stock et al. (2016) [46] | Zirconia primary crowns Secondary PEEK crowns of different taper and manufacturing methods; milled from PEEK blanks; thermo-pressed from PEEK pellets; thermo-pressed from granular PEEK (n = 30/group) | Milled 0° tapered PEEK crowns presented the lowest retention force Milled 2° tapered PEEK crowns had the highest retention force values Retention force of pressed PEEK not influenced by the taper angle Decrease of retention after the first twenty pull-off cyclew for pressed PEEK | |
Wagner et al. (2018) [47] | PEEK telescopic crowns and cobalt chrome copings of different taper and manufacturing methods (n = 10/group) | Stable retention load values for each test group | |
Stock et al. (2016) [48] | Milled PEEK primary and cobalt-chromium (CoCr), zirconia (ZrO2) and galvanic (GAL) secondary crowns with three different tapers (n = 30, 10/taper) | Milled PEEK can be used as primary crown material with high retentive forces in combination with secondary zirconia, cobalt-chromium or electroformed crowns | |
Benli et al. (2020) [11] | Occlusal splint | CAD-CAM PEEK Vinyl acetate Polymethyl methacrylate Polycarbonate Polyethyleneterephthalate (n = 12/group) | After chewing simulation PEEK occlusal splints exhibited lower loss of volume and lower roughness alteration compared to other CAD-CAM materials |
Benli et al. (2020) [49] | Intra-radicular posts | Milled PEEK Glass-fiber Cast-metal (n = 20/group) | PEEK posts exhibited the highest tensile bond strength and the lowest surface roughness |
Kaleli et al. (2018) [9] | Implant abutments | PEEK and zirconia customized abutments | Finite element analysis showed higher stress values in restorative crowns for PEEK abutments |
Abdullah et al. (2016) [50] | Provisional crowns | PEEK VITA CAD Temp Telio CAD-Temp Protemp 4 | PEEK demonstrated superior fit and fracture strength than other materials |