Fracture Resistance and Finite Element Analysis of Single-piece PEEK Implant Restorative System Versus Titanium Single-piece Implant Restorative System: In-vitro Study | ||||
| Journal of Fundamental and Clinical Research | ||||
| Article 8, Volume 3, Issue 2, December 2023, Page 154-169 PDF (585.42 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original research articles | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/jfcr.2023.217235.1050 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Tharwat Abaza   1; Mostafa Hussien Kamal 2; Tamer Hamza 3
| ||||
| 1Department of Conservative Dentistry, Fixed Prosthodontics Division, Misr International University | ||||
| 2Lecturer of Fixed Prosthodontics Conservative Dentistry Department, Fixed Prosthodontic Division, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Misr International University, Cairo, Egypt | ||||
| 3Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al Azhar University Dean of Dentistry, Badr University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Aim: To compare the fracture resistance and stress distribution of titanium one-piece implant restorative system with one-piece PEEK implant restorative system. Materials and Methods: 16 implants were divided into into two groups (n=8): titanium implants (Group Ti) and PEEK implants (Group P). All the samples received PEEK crowns simulating a lower premolar. Prefabricated one-piece titanium implants were scanned to be replicated into PEEK implants. Implants were imbedded in epoxy resin bases; the abutments were scanned, and the PEEK crowns were designed using a biogeneric copy on ExoCAD software. Crowns were pressed and cemented to their respective abutments. Fracture resistance test was assessed using a universal testing machine with a 5kN static load at crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was conducted to evaluate stress distribution under various loading scenarios simulating oral conditions. Results: Group Ti showed significantly higher fracture resistance compared to the Group P (P < 0.001, Effect size = 2.519). Significant difference was found in failure modes between the groups (P < 0.001, Effect size = 1); Group P demonstrated higher prevalence of catastrophic failures in fixtures. FEA revealed higher Von Mises stresses in PEEK than in titanium under various loading conditions. Conclusion: Titanium showed superior fracture resistance when compared to PEEK. Titanium distributed stresses to supporting structures in a more favorable manner than PEEK. These findings highlight the limitations of PEEK as an implant material. Titanium remains a more suitable choice in terms of fracture resistance and stress distribution. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Keywords: PEEK; one-piece implants; stress distribution; fracture resistance | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 88 PDF Download: 143 |
||||
