Role of PEEK in RPD: A systematic review

R Padmini Rani; Lakshmi Senkumar; Alok Dubey; Sheetal Mujoo; Damarasingu Rajesh; Dandu Manohar Varma

doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6nS7.12998

Authors

R Padmini Rani
dryuvrani17@gmail.com
Senior resident, SCB Dental college and hospital, Cuttack
Lakshmi Senkumar BDS, Clinical Assistant Professor, ECU School of Dental Medicine, Greenville, NC, USA
Alok Dubey Associate professor, Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
Sheetal Mujoo Assistant professor, Division of Oral medicine & Radiology, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
Damarasingu Rajesh OMFS, PhD Scholar, Dept of OMFS, Narsinhbhai Patel Dental College and Hospital, Sankalchand Patel University, Visnagar, Gujarat
Dandu Manohar Varma BDS, Consultant & Chief Dental Surgeon, Smile Care Dental Hospital, Sethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, AP, India

Keywords:

polyetheretherketone, dental prostheses, prosthodontics

Abstract

Aim This systematic review aims to analyse and appraise the literature concerning PEEK dental prostheses critically. Methodology The following focused question was constructed ‘Are dental prostheses made of PEEK inferior to those made of other materials in terms of clinical- and patient-reported outcomes?’. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) tool was used for the quality assessment of the randomised clinical trials. Results A total of 12 studies were included in this review. Two case studies received an overall grade of medium and the overall quality of six studies was graded as ‘low’. All three observational studies and the only randomised controlled trial received scores of ‘medium’. Conclusion PEEK-based dental prostheses may provide a viable and more esthetic alternative to conventional prosthodontic appliances. However, within the limitations of this study is the evidence to ascertain the long-term viability of PEEK-based dental prostheses. Future studies should focus on conducting large-scale, multicenter trials to compare the survival rate of PEEK prostheses to that of conventionally available prosthodontic appliances.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Skirbutis G, Dzingutė A, Masiliūnaitė V, Šulcaitė G, Žilinskas J. A review of PEEK polymer’s properties and its use in prosthodontics. Stomatologija 2017;19(1):19-23.

Quinn JB, Sundar V, Lloyd IK. Influence of microstructure and chemistry on the fracture toughness of dental ceramics. Dent Mater 2003;19:603-11.

Green S, & Schlegel J. A polyaryletherketone biomaterial for use in medical implant applications. Polym Med Ind Proc, Brussels, 2001;14-15.

Toth JM, Wang M, Estes BT, Scifert JL, Seim HB, Turner AS et al. Polyetheretherketone as a biomaterial for spinal applications. Biomater 2006;27:324–34.

Kurtz SM, Devine JN. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopaedic, and spinal implants. Biomater 2007;28:4845–69.

Pokorny D, Fulin P, Slouf M, Jahoda D, Landor I, Sosna A. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Part II: Application in clinical practice. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 2010;77:470–8.

Ma R, Tang T. Current strategies to improve the bioactivity of PEEK. Int J Mol Sci 2014;15:5426-45.

Karan M, Dua JS, Sonia C, Priyanshu RS, Anuj A, Veenita S. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) dental implants: A case for immediate loading. Int J Oral Implantol Clin Res 2011;2(2):97–103.

Stawarczyk B, Beuer F, Wimmer T, Jahn D, Sener B, Roos M, Schmidlin PR. 2013. Polyetheretherketone—A suitable material for fixed dental prostheses? J Biomed Mater Res Part B 2013:101B:1209–1216.

Sachin S, Cehreli MC, Yalcin E.The influence of functional forces on the biomechanics of implant supported prosthesis-a review. J Dent. 2002; 30:271–282.

Sarot JR, Contar CM, Cruz AC, De Souza MR. Evaluation of stress distribution in CFR-PEEK dental implants by the three- dimensional finite element method. J Mater Sci Med. 2010; 21:2079–2085.

Ozkurt Z, Kazzoglu E. Zirconia dental implants: A literature review. J Oral Implant. 2011; 37:367–376.

Schwitalla A, Muller WD. PEEK Dental Implants: A Review of the literature. J Oral Implant. 2013;39:743–749.

Yildirim M, Fischer H, Marx R, Edelhoff D. In vivo fracture resistance of implant-supported all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90:325–331.

Andreiotelli M, Wenz HJ, Kohal RJ. Are ceramic implants a viable alternative to titanium implants? A systematic literature review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:32–47.

Pjetursson, B.E.; Thoma, D.; Jung, R.; Zwahlen, M.; Zembic, A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012, 23, 22–38.

Mutneja, P.; Shrivastava, S.P.; Dable, R.; Raj, A.N.; Srivastava, S.B.; Haque, M. Comparison of Mechanical Properties of PEEK and PMMA: An In Vitro Study. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2021, 22, 179–183.

Wang, J.; Wu, P.; Liu, H.-L.; Zhang, L.; Liu, L.-P.; Ma, C.-F.; Chen, J.-H. Polyetheretherketone versus titanium CAD-CAM framework for implant-supported fixed complete dentures: A retrospective study with up to 5-year follow-up. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2021, 66, 279–287.