In vitro assessment of PEEK and titanium implant abutments: screw loosening and microleakage evaluations under dynamic mechanical testing
Statement of problem. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has been advocated to replace metal components in dentistry. Although PEEK is a high-performance polymer with a white color, adequate biological response, and resistance to fracture, data to support PEEK as an alternative material for implant abutmen...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2020 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) |
| Repositorio: | UPCommons. Portal del coneixement obert de la UPC |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:upcommons.upc.edu:2117/346056 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2117/346056 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.033 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Dental materials PEEK Abutment Dental implant Microleakage Screw loosening Dynamic mechanical testing ISO 14801 Materials dentals Àrees temàtiques de la UPC::Enginyeria biomèdica::Biomaterials::Materials dentals |
| Sumario: | Statement of problem. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has been advocated to replace metal components in dentistry. Although PEEK is a high-performance polymer with a white color, adequate biological response, and resistance to fracture, data to support PEEK as an alternative material for implant abutments are lacking. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the mechanical and functional properties of PEEK implant abutments as a nonmetallic alternative to titanium abutments, which presents esthetic limitations and greater difficulty to customize clinically. Material and methods. Implant abutments manufactured by using PEEK (n=24) or titanium grade 5 (n=24) were attached to MIS Implants type M4 3.75×16 mm with an internal screw tightened to 25 Ncm. Screw loosening and microleakage was assessed by submersion in a 2% methylene blue solution for 48 hours at 37 C. Both groups were compared with and without applying dynamic loading; fatigue testing was performed following the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14801:2016 standard. All specimens were observed under a stereomicroscope at ×8 magnification. Statistically significant differences among the PEEK and titanium implant abutments were tested with 2-factor ANOVA and the chi-square analysis for nonpaired and paired data, respectively (a=.05). Results. The implant abutments made of titanium were better in all mechanical tests. The torque loss of titanium abutments was approximately 10%, while PEEK showed a significantly higher (P<.05) torque loss of up to 50%. Moreover, 91.6% of the titanium abutments did not present microleakage, while there was no specimen of PEEK abutments without microleakage, once subjected to dynamic loading (P<.05). Conclusions. Titanium implant abutments (Ti6Al4V) were better in all tests performed. However, PEEK abutments may be suitable for long-term interim restorations, especially in the anterior area, in patients without parafunction. |
|---|