The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 24 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Comparison of Fracture Resistance between Different Treatment Modalities of Mutilated Endodontically Treated Teeth Using Polyether Ether Ketone

Diana Dghaily, Hala Ragab, Ghadah Alzahrani

Keywords : Endodontically treated teeth, Fracture resistance, Polyether ether ketone, Zirconia

Citation Information : Dghaily D, Ragab H, Alzahrani G. Comparison of Fracture Resistance between Different Treatment Modalities of Mutilated Endodontically Treated Teeth Using Polyether Ether Ketone. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (9):668-673.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3558

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-10-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Aim: To compare fracture resistance of multiple treatment modalities intended for mutilated teeth using polyether ether ketone (PEEK) and zirconia materials. Materials and methods: The study was divided into four groups according to treatment modality adopted (n = 14): fiber post (F), Nayyar core (N), endocrown (E), and Richmond crown (R). Each group was further subdivided into two groups (n = 7) according to the type of material used: zirconia (Z) and PEEK (P). Using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing, restorations were constructed from both materials following tested treatment options and manufacturer direction. Finished restorations were then tried, seated, and cemented to their corresponding acrylic teeth. All specimens were tested for fracture resistance in universal testing machine with cross head speed of 0.5 mm/min speed until failure, which was confirmed by a sudden drop in the measurements of the testing machine. Results were recorded, tabulated, and statistically analyzed. Shapiro-Wilk normality tests were considered to evaluate the normality of the data distributions. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's post hoc analysis was conducted to analyze the fracture resistance significant differences. Results: Descriptive statistics of the restoration material revealed statistically a higher mean value for PEEK material (3609 ± 188.1) than zirconia (2404 ± 425.6). One-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between zirconia group (p < 0.0001). Regarding zirconia group statistical significance was detected between fiber post vs endocrown (p = 0.0299), fiber post vs Richmond crown (p < 0.0001), and Nayyar core vs Richmond crown (p = 0.0004). However, there was no statistically significant difference between PEEK group (P = 0.1614). Conclusion: Polyether ether ketone could present a reliable treatment option in endodontically treated teeth. Clinical significance: Using one-piece Richmond crowns constructed of PEEK could present a viable treatment option against conventional treatment options of root canal treatment (RCT) single-rooted teeth.

  1. El-Backly RM, Massoud AG, El-Badry AM, et al. Regeneration of dentine/pulp-like tissue using a dental pulp stem cell/poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid scaffold construct in New Zealand white rabbits. Aust Endod J 2008;34(2):52–67. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4477.2008.00139.x.
  2. Ping L, Zhimin Z. In vitro analysis of the effect of cyclic loading on the fracture resistance of teeth restored with different post and core systems. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2015;33(2):206–208. DOI: 10.7518/hxkq.2015.02.021.
  3. Kurthukoti AJ, Paul J, Gandhi K, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated permanent anterior teeth restored with three different esthetic post systems: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2015;33(4):296–301. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.165675.
  4. Schwitalla AD, Spintig T, Kallage I, et al. Flexural behavior of PEEK materials for dental application. Dent Mater 2015;31(11):1377–1384. DOI: 10.1016/
  5. Sadek SA. Comparative study clarifying the usage of peek as suitable material to be used as partial denture attachment and framework. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2019;7(7):1193–1197. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.287.
  6. Jain V, Vijay Kumar R, Prakash P, et al. Role of PEEK biomaterial in prosthodontics: A literature review. IP Ann of Prosthodont Restor Dent 2019;5(3):63–67. DOI: 10.18231/j.aprd.2019.015.
  7. Najeeb S, Zafar MS, Khurshid Z, et al. Applications of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in oral implantology and prosthodontics. J Prosthodont Res 2016;60(1):12–19. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2015.10.001.
  8. Zoidis P, Papathanasiou I, Polyzois G. The use of a modified poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) as an alternative framework material for removable dental prostheses. A clinical report. J Prosthodont 2016;25(7):580–584. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12325.
  9. Fernández-Estevan L, Millan-Martínez D, Fons-Font A, et al. Methodology in specimen fabrication for in vitro dental studies: Standardization of extracted tooth preparation. J Clin Exp Dent 2017;9(7):897–900. DOI: 10.4317/jced.54020.
  10. Al-Zubaidi Z, Al-Shamma A. The effect of different finishing lines on the marginal fitness of full contour zirconia and glass ceramic cad/cam crowns (an in-vitro study). J Dent Mater Tech 2015;4(3):127–136. DOI: 10.22038/JDMT.2015.4595.
  11. Zhou TF, Wang XZ. Clinical observation of the restoration of computer aided designed and manufactured one-piece zirconia posts and cores: A 5-year prospective follow-up study. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 2018;50(4):680–684. PMID: 30122771.
  12. Vinothkumar TS, Kandaswamy D, Chanana P. CAD/CAM fabricated single-unit all-ceramic post-core-crown restoration. J Conserv Dent 2011;14(1):86–89. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.80730.
  13. Carlos RB, Thomas Nainan M, Pradhan S, et al. Restoration of endodontically treated molars using all ceramic endocrowns. Case Rep Dent 2013;2013:1–5. DOI: 10.1155/2013/210763.
  14. Turkistani AA, Dimashkieh M, Rayyan M. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with endocrowns: An in vitro study. J Esthet Restor Dent 2020;32(4):389–394. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12549.
  15. Dartora NR, de Conto Ferreira MB, Moris ICM, et al. Effect of intracoronal depth of teeth restored with endocrowns on fracture resistance: In vitro and 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Endod 2018;44(7):1179–1185. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.04.008.
  16. Wang B, Huang M, Dang P, et al. PEEK in fixed dental prostheses: Application and adhesion improvement. Polymers (Basel) 2022;14(12):2323. DOI: 10.3390/polym14122323.
  17. Martínez-Rus F, Rodríguez C, Salido MP, et al. Influence of different cleaning procedures on the shear bond strength of 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate-containing self-adhesive resin cement to saliva contaminated zirconia. J Prosthodont Res 2021;65(4):443–448. DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_20_00157.
  18. Stawarczyk B, Beuer F, Wimmer T, et al. Polyetheretherketone—A suitable material for fixed dental prostheses? J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2013;101(7):1209–1216. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.32932.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.