The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2022
Clinical performance of polymer frameworks in dental prostheses: A systematic review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание 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.
Gama Lorena Tavares, Bezerra Adriana Pinto, Schimmel Martin, Rodrigues Garcia Renata Cunha Matheus, de Luca Canto Graziela, Gonçalves Thais Marques Simek Vega
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: High-performance polymers including polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) have been used as substitutes for metal frameworks in dental prostheses. However, the clinical performance of polymer-based frameworks is still uncertain.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical performance of PEEK and PEKK with that of metal frameworks for different dental prostheses.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Six databases and non-peer-reviewed literature (without language or follow-up restrictions) were searched for studies conducted before February 2022. Only clinical studies, either randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized clinical trials (N-RCTs), comparing the clinical performance of polymer and metal frameworks were included. The risk of bias and certainty of the evidence were assessed with the RoB 2.0, ROBINS-I, and GRADE. Biologic (plaque and gingival indices, probing depth, bleeding scores, implant stability quotient, marginal bone loss) and mechanical outcomes (ridge base relation, prosthetic marginal gap, and fracture) were assessed.
RESULTS: Only 9 studies (7 RCTs and 2 N-RCTs) were included, all with moderate to serious risk of bias and low to very low certainty of evidence. No meta-analysis was possible, but qualitative analysis revealed lower plaque and gingival indices, probing depth, and marginal bone loss, with higher survival rates for implant-supported fixed prostheses and overdentures fabricated with PEEK than for metal frameworks. No significant differences were found between groups for removable partial dentures. The marginal fit of PEEK frameworks was also better for single crowns. Three fractures were reported in the 3 PEKK fixed dental prostheses with cantilevers.
CONCLUSIONS: PEEK and PEKK seem to be promising materials for dental prostheses, with acceptable response from the periodontal tissue. However, further well-designed studies are necessary to better understand their clinical and long-term limitations.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical performance of PEEK and PEKK with that of metal frameworks for different dental prostheses.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Six databases and non-peer-reviewed literature (without language or follow-up restrictions) were searched for studies conducted before February 2022. Only clinical studies, either randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized clinical trials (N-RCTs), comparing the clinical performance of polymer and metal frameworks were included. The risk of bias and certainty of the evidence were assessed with the RoB 2.0, ROBINS-I, and GRADE. Biologic (plaque and gingival indices, probing depth, bleeding scores, implant stability quotient, marginal bone loss) and mechanical outcomes (ridge base relation, prosthetic marginal gap, and fracture) were assessed.
RESULTS: Only 9 studies (7 RCTs and 2 N-RCTs) were included, all with moderate to serious risk of bias and low to very low certainty of evidence. No meta-analysis was possible, but qualitative analysis revealed lower plaque and gingival indices, probing depth, and marginal bone loss, with higher survival rates for implant-supported fixed prostheses and overdentures fabricated with PEEK than for metal frameworks. No significant differences were found between groups for removable partial dentures. The marginal fit of PEEK frameworks was also better for single crowns. Three fractures were reported in the 3 PEKK fixed dental prostheses with cantilevers.
CONCLUSIONS: PEEK and PEKK seem to be promising materials for dental prostheses, with acceptable response from the periodontal tissue. However, further well-designed studies are necessary to better understand their clinical and long-term limitations.