The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2026
Effect of different fabrication techniques on the fracture resistance of polyetheretherketone implant-supported posterior crowns: An in vitro study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fawzy Aya, Radawn Mohamed, Attia Mazen A
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) can be adopted as a coping material for implant-supported crowns. However, data on the fracture resistance of PEEK implant-supported posterior crowns produced by different fabrication techniques are scarce.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of different fabrication techniques on the fracture resistance of PEEK implant-supported posterior crowns.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty implants were placed in autopolymerizing acrylic resin blocks, with implant abutments positioned on each implant. Thirty PEEK copings were fabricated and assigned to 3 groups (n=10) depending on the fabrication technique: group MP, milled from a reinforced PEEK disk; group PP, heat pressed from PEEK granules; and group AMP, additively manufactured from PEEK filaments. All PEEK copings were veneered with a nanohybrid composite resin in the form of the maxillary right premolar. Then, a composite resin cement was used to cement the crowns to the implant abutments. All crowns underwent cyclic loading in a mastication simulator (1 200 000 cycles, 1.7 Hz, and 50 N). Fracture resistance was determined by using a universal testing machine, and the failure mode was recorded by using a stereomicroscope at ×15 magnification. A representative fractured crown from each group was assessed under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at ×1000 magnification. Data were analyzed by using 1-way analysis of variance and the pairwise Tukey (HSD) tests (α=.05).
RESULTS: No debonding, chipping, or fractures were detected after cyclic loading. The mean ±standard deviation fracture load values after cyclic loading were 1047 ±108 N for the MP group, 762 ±78 N for the PP group, and 647 ±65 N for the AMP group. Statistically significant differences in fracture resistance were observed among all groups (F=56.77, P<.001). For the failure mode, all groups exhibited 100% unfavorable failures, as coping fractures necessitated complete restoration replacement.
CONCLUSIONS: The fabrication technique and material formulation influenced the fracture resistance of PEEK implant-supported posterior crowns. Milled PEEK implant-supported crowns exhibited significantly higher fracture resistance than heat-pressed or additively manufactured ones; however, all fabrication techniques produced fracture loads exceeding normal physiologic occlusal forces, regardless of differences in material formulation.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of different fabrication techniques on the fracture resistance of PEEK implant-supported posterior crowns.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty implants were placed in autopolymerizing acrylic resin blocks, with implant abutments positioned on each implant. Thirty PEEK copings were fabricated and assigned to 3 groups (n=10) depending on the fabrication technique: group MP, milled from a reinforced PEEK disk; group PP, heat pressed from PEEK granules; and group AMP, additively manufactured from PEEK filaments. All PEEK copings were veneered with a nanohybrid composite resin in the form of the maxillary right premolar. Then, a composite resin cement was used to cement the crowns to the implant abutments. All crowns underwent cyclic loading in a mastication simulator (1 200 000 cycles, 1.7 Hz, and 50 N). Fracture resistance was determined by using a universal testing machine, and the failure mode was recorded by using a stereomicroscope at ×15 magnification. A representative fractured crown from each group was assessed under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at ×1000 magnification. Data were analyzed by using 1-way analysis of variance and the pairwise Tukey (HSD) tests (α=.05).
RESULTS: No debonding, chipping, or fractures were detected after cyclic loading. The mean ±standard deviation fracture load values after cyclic loading were 1047 ±108 N for the MP group, 762 ±78 N for the PP group, and 647 ±65 N for the AMP group. Statistically significant differences in fracture resistance were observed among all groups (F=56.77, P<.001). For the failure mode, all groups exhibited 100% unfavorable failures, as coping fractures necessitated complete restoration replacement.
CONCLUSIONS: The fabrication technique and material formulation influenced the fracture resistance of PEEK implant-supported posterior crowns. Milled PEEK implant-supported crowns exhibited significantly higher fracture resistance than heat-pressed or additively manufactured ones; however, all fabrication techniques produced fracture loads exceeding normal physiologic occlusal forces, regardless of differences in material formulation.