The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2025
Performance of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) versus cobalt chromium to fabricate removable partial denture frameworks: A systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Srivastava Gunjan, Padhiary Subrat Kumar, Schimmel Martin, Schenk Nicole, Çakmak Gülce, Roccuzzo Andrea, Molinero-Mourelle Pedro
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The performance of cobalt chromium (Co-Cr) removable partial dentures (RPDs) is well established, but a comparison with the polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in terms of fit, retention, clinical performance, patient outcomes, and associated complications is lacking.
PURPOS: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the current evidence on the performance of PEEK as a framework or clasp material compared with Co-Cr for the fabrication of RPDs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic search for articles in the English language through PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from 2000 to 2024 and screened by 2 independent reviewers was made to identify in vitro or clinical studies comparing PEEK with Co-Cr for the fabrication of RPD frameworks and clasps.
RESULTS: From 327 studies identified, 13 were included: 9 in vitro and 4 clinical studies. Data were extracted regarding the number of participants, types of prosthesis, arch of placement, follow-up period, fit, retention, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Four of the 9 in vitro studies evaluated the fit of the RPD framework. Five in vitro studies assessed the retention of the prostheses and reported that PEEK demonstrated durability and retention forces comparable with Co-Cr. Four clinical trials compared PROMs and bone loss patterns associated with PEEK and Co-Cr.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical studies and in vitro research comparing PEEK and Co-Cr frameworks for RPDs are still sparse. However, current evidence indicates a comparable fit with mean ±standard deviation gap distance of 42.8 ±29.4 µm for PEEK frameworks and 130.9 ±50.5 µm for Co-Cr frameworks. Additionally, retention, and patient satisfaction with PEEK frameworks were found similar to those of conventional Co-Cr frameworks.
PURPOS: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the current evidence on the performance of PEEK as a framework or clasp material compared with Co-Cr for the fabrication of RPDs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic search for articles in the English language through PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from 2000 to 2024 and screened by 2 independent reviewers was made to identify in vitro or clinical studies comparing PEEK with Co-Cr for the fabrication of RPD frameworks and clasps.
RESULTS: From 327 studies identified, 13 were included: 9 in vitro and 4 clinical studies. Data were extracted regarding the number of participants, types of prosthesis, arch of placement, follow-up period, fit, retention, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Four of the 9 in vitro studies evaluated the fit of the RPD framework. Five in vitro studies assessed the retention of the prostheses and reported that PEEK demonstrated durability and retention forces comparable with Co-Cr. Four clinical trials compared PROMs and bone loss patterns associated with PEEK and Co-Cr.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical studies and in vitro research comparing PEEK and Co-Cr frameworks for RPDs are still sparse. However, current evidence indicates a comparable fit with mean ±standard deviation gap distance of 42.8 ±29.4 µm for PEEK frameworks and 130.9 ±50.5 µm for Co-Cr frameworks. Additionally, retention, and patient satisfaction with PEEK frameworks were found similar to those of conventional Co-Cr frameworks.