Background: Connecting teeth to implants was always associated with technical complications like veneer fracture
and cement bond breakage, especially if rigidly connected, and intrusion with non rigid connection. Different
materials were used with the gold standard treatment, porcelain fused to metal (PFM), showing the least technical
complications of them. The search for less maintenance requiring material is still demanded.
Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the maintenance requirements of polyetheretherketone (PEEK)-composite
versus metal-ceramic tooth-implant supported prostheses (TISP).
Materials and methods: This is a randomized, controlled clinical trial with a split mouth design. The trial included
12 patients (24 subjects). Patients with symmetrical Kennedy class I received one implant in the molar region,
followed by a three unit fixed partial denture (FPD) connecting one molar implant to one premolar natural tooth on
each side.
In each patient, one side was restored with composite veneered to PEEK FPD, while the other side was restored
with PFM FPD. The patients were recalled on 6, 12 and 18 month for inspection. The occurrence of technical
complications or lack of was recorded, tabulated and statistically analyzed using Chi square test and Fischer exact
test.
Results: The result of the analysis showed that there is no statistical significant difference between the two groups
regarding veneering material fracture, loss of cementation, and screw loosening/fracture.
Conclusion: In Kennedy class I cases restored with tooth-implant-supported prosthesis (TISP), both metal-ceramic
and PEEK-composite are viable FPD options in short follow-up period of 18 months. Neither of the aforementioned
materials showed superiority in reducing prosthetic complications in TISP cases. A protocol of this study has a trial
registration number of PACTR201504001079167.
Hi! I can explain how to publish or share, find articles in your field, format citations and answer questions about fees and licensing. How can I help?
Answers are based on The Gufo’s published policies. Editorial decisions are made by the editorial team.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
