The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

One-year Clinical Evaluation, Patient Satisfaction, and Adaptation of Milled (PEEK) Single Anterior Crowns Veneered with Two Different Techniques

Mohamed Qasem, Omnia El Shehy, Omnia Nabil

Keywords : Biocompatible high-performance polymers, Esthetics, High impact polymer composite, Poly-methyl-meth-acrylate

Citation Information : Qasem M, El Shehy O, Nabil O. One-year Clinical Evaluation, Patient Satisfaction, and Adaptation of Milled (PEEK) Single Anterior Crowns Veneered with Two Different Techniques. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (8):778-789.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3748

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 26-11-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the patient satisfaction and marginal adaptation of milled BioHPP polyether ether ketone (PEEK) copings veneered with CAD/CAM composite resin and compare them to milled BioHPP PEEK copings veneered with manual layering. Materials and methods: A total of 32 patients required anterior crowns to restore discolored, fractured, or maligned anterior teeth. Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of restoration used. The Comparator group included patients receiving milled BioHPP PEEK copings veneered with manual layering, while the intervention group was veneered with CAD/CAM composite resin. After final cementation, patient satisfaction and marginal adaptation were evaluated according to the rating score, and modified RYGE criteria respectively, after 6 and 12 months follow-up interval. Results: Patient satisfaction results at baseline, the mean satisfaction scores were similar between groups, with no significant difference (p = 0.1536). After 6 months, scores increased in both groups, but the difference between groups remained non-significant (p = 0.0660). By 1 year, scores were identical between groups (means both 1.750), and marginal adaptation comparison between both groups (manual veneered) and (CAD/CAM veneered) revealed insignificant differences between both groups at T0, T1, T2. Conclusions: After 1 year of follow-up, milled BioHPP PEEK copings veneered with manual veneering and CAD/CAM composite resin veneering, showed successful patient satisfaction, and marginal adaptation. Clinical significance: The study may provide guidance for the clinicians to use this veneering technique to match shades that are clinically acceptable when esthetic is required with PEEK crowns good adaptation and easier modification.

PDF Share
  1. Hallmann L, Mehl A, Sereno N, et al. The improvement of adhesive properties of PEEK through different pre-treatments. Appl Surf Sci 2012;258(18):7213–7218. DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2012.04.040.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Parmigiani-Izquierdo JM, Cabaña-Muñoz ME, Merino JJ, et al. Zirconia implants and peek restorations for the replacement of upper molars. Int J Implant Dent 2017;3(1):5. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-016-0062-2.
  5. Mishra S, Chowdhary R. PEEK materials as an alternative to titanium in dental implants: A systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21(1):208–222. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12706.
  6. Fahmy AR, Zohdy M, Abd G, et al. Color reproduction of PEEK material veneered with IPS E. max and Visio.lign and composite blocks with different thicknesses. Al-Azhar J Dent Sci 2020;23(1):87–94. DOI: 10.21608/ajdsm.2020.120355.
  7. Erjavec AK, Črešnar KP, Švab I, et al. Determination of shear bond strength between PEEK composites and veneering composites for the production of dental restorations. Materials (Basel) 2023;16(9):3286. DOI: 10.3390/ma16093286.
  8. Dettori J. The random allocation process: two things you need to know. Evid Based Spine Care J 2010;1(3):7–9. DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1267062.
  9. Liebermann A, Wimmer T, Schmidlin PR, et al. Physicomechanical characterization of polyetheretherketone and current esthetic dental CAD/CAM polymers after aging in different storage media. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115(3):321–8.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015. 09.004.
  10. Andreescu C, Ghergic D, Botoca O, et al. The advantages of high-density polymer CAD/CAM Interim restorations in oral implantology. Mater Plast 2017;54(1):32–36. DOI: 10.37358/MP.17.1.4779.
  11. Heimer S, Schmidlin PR, Roos M, et al. Surface properties of polyetheretherketone after different laboratory and chairside polishing protocols. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117(3):419–425. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.06.016.
  12. Abdullah A, Muhammed F, Zheng B, et al. An Overview of Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in Restorative Dentistry. J Dent Mater Tech 2018;7(1):1–10. DOI: 10.22038/jdmt.2017.26351.1213.
  13. Astudillo-Rubio D, Delgado-Gaete A, Bellot-Arcís C, et al. Mechanical properties of provisional dental materials: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2018 Feb 28;13(2):e0193162. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193162.
  14. Dawson JH, Hyde B, Hurst M, et al. Polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), a framework material for complete fixed and removable dental prostheses: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119(6):867–872. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.09.008.
  15. Dureja I, Yadav B, Malhotra P, et al. A comparative evaluation of vertical marginal fit of provisional crowns fabricated by computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technique and direct (intraoral technique) and flexural strength of the materials: An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2018;18(4):314–320. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_306_17.
  16. Ebeid K, Sabet A, Della Bona A. Accuracy and repeatability of different intraoral scanners on shade determination. J Esthet Restor Dent 2021;33(6):844–848. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12687.
  17. Badran AR, Zaki A, Rabie K. One year clinical evaluation of milled BioHPP Polyetheretherketone (PEEK)-based versus metal ceramic single crowns (randomized controlled clinical trial). Brazil Dent Sci 2021;24(3). DOI: 10.14295/bds.2021.v24i3.2518.
  18. Tejada-Casado M, Ghinea R, Martínez-Domingo MÁ, et al. Validation of a hyperspectral imaging system for color measurement of in-vivo dental structures. Micromachines (Basel) 2022;13(11):1929. DOI: 10.3390/mi13111929.
  19. Pordeus Batista LA, Vieira-Junior WF, Pacheco RR, et al. Color alteration with ceramic veneers according to the tooth type and preparation step: A clinical analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2024;132(1):100–107. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.04.032.
  20. Kimura H, Morita K, Nishio F, et al. Clinical report of six-month follow-up after cementing PEEK crown on molars. Sci Rep 2022;12(1):19070. Published 2022. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-23458-5.
  21. Al-Wahadni A, Ajlouni R, Al-Omari Q, et al. Shade-match perception of porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations: A comparison between dentist and patient. J Am Dent Assoc 2002;133(9):1220–1261. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2002.0363.
  22. Lee YK, Lu H, Oguri M, et al. Changes in color and staining of dental composite resins after wear simulation. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2007;82(2):313–319. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.30735.
  23. Woo ST, Yu B, Ahn JS, et al. Comparison of translucency between indirect and direct resin composites. J Dent 2008;36(8):637–642. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.04.012.
  24. Samorodnitzky-Naveh GR, Geiger SB, Levin L. Patients' satisfaction with dental esthetics. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138(6):805–808. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0269.
  25. Powers JM, Sakaguchi RL, Craig RG. Craig's, Restorative Dental Materials. Ronald L, Sakaguchi John M (ed). Powers. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier/Mosby 2012.
  26. Shah RJ, Malek FG, Agarwal P. A study of patient satisfaction with maxillary anterior teeth restorations and desirable esthetic treatment options. J. Dent. Med. Sci 2014;13:79–86. DOI: 10.9790/0853-131037986.
  27. 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.
  28. Zoidis P, Bakiri E, Polyzois G. Using modified polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as an alternative material for endocrown restorations: A short-term clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117(3):335–339. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.08.009.
  29. Skirbutis G, Dzingutė A, Masiliūnaitė V, et al. A review of PEEK polymer's properties and its use in prosthodontics. Stomatologija 2017;19(1):19–23. PMID: 29243680.
  30. Ballard E, Metz MJ, Harris BT, et al. Satisfaction of Dental Students, Faculty, and Patients with Tooth Shade-Matching Using a Spectrophotometer. J Dent Educ 2017;81(5):545–553. DOI: 10.21815/JDE.016.022.
  31. Helmy N, Naguib AH, El-Naggar G. Patient satisfaction and dentist shade matching of Bio HPP compared to Lithium disilicate crowns in anterior aesthetic zone. (randomized controlled clinical trial). IOSR J Dent Med Sci (IOSR-JDMS) 2020;19(1):1–10.
  32. El Sokkary AM, El Khodary N, Nagi N. “One-year clinical evaluation of patient satisfaction for CAD/CAMBIOHPP polyetheretherketone (PEEK) versus zirconia veneered single crowns (randomized controlled clinical trial)”. Sci Arch Dent Sci 2922;5(11): 01–09.
  33. Abdullah AO, Tsitrou EA, Pollington S. Comparative in vitro evaluation of CAD/CAM vs conventional provisional crowns. J Appl Oral Sci 2016;24(3):258–263. DOI: 10.1590/1678-775720150451.
  34. Hossam M, Waleed E, Masoud GE. Evaluation of marginal adaptation and fracture resistance of BioHpp and zirconia. Egypt Dent J 2019;64(3):1489–1501. 22
  35. Jin HY, Teng MH, Wang ZJ, et al. Comparative evaluation of BioHPP and titanium as a framework veneered with composite resin for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122(4):383–388. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.003.
  36. Attia MA, Shokry TE. Effect of different fabrication techniques on the marginal precision of polyetheretherketone single-crown copings. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124(5):565.e1–565.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.04.003.
  37. Emad M, Katamish H, Hany C, Vertical marginal gap distance of CAD/CAM Milled BioHPP PEEK coping veneered by HIPC compared to zirconia coping veneered by CAD-on lithium disilicate “in-vitro study”. J. Adv Dent 2020;2(2):43–50. DOI: 10.21608/adjc.2020.21032.1043.
  38. Beleidy M, Ziada A. Marginal accuracy and fracture resistance of posterior crowns fabricated from CAD/CAMPEEK cores veneered with HIPC or nanohybrid conventional composite. Egyptian Dent J 2020;66(4), 2541–2552. DOI: 10.21608/edj.2020.40096.1217.
  39. El Sokkary AM, Khair Allah LS, El Khodary, et al. One year clinical evaluation of fracture and marginal integrety of milled biohpp polyetheretherketon (PEEK) versus zirconia veneered single crowns. Braz Dent Sci 2021;24 (4 suppl 1). DOI: 10.4322/bds.2021.e2704.
  40. Ghodsi S, Alikhasi M, Sahebi M, et al. Marginal adaptation of implant prostheses fabricated by different materials in excessive crown height space before and after veneering. Front Dent 2021;18:28. DOI: 10.18502/fid.v18i28.6938.
  41. El Talawy D, Ali S. Prosthetic complications and patient satisfaction with maxillary polyether ether ketone hybrid prosthesis veneered with acrylic or composite resin for patients rehabilitated by “All on four” concept. Egyptian Dent J 2021;67(2):1333–1343. DOI: 10.21608/edj.2021.54991.1422.
  42. Çalışkan C, Demirci F, Birgealp Erdem M. Comparison of marginal adaptation of different framework materials before and after cementation: an in vitro study. Sabuncuoglu Serefeddin Health Sci 2022;4(1):28–45. DOI: 10.55895/sshs.1050112.
  43. Emam M, Metwally MF. Effect of coping materials zirconia or polyetheretherketone with different techniques of fabrication on vertical marginal gap and fracture resistance of posterior crowns with composite veneering. BMC Oral Health 2023;23(1):546. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03247-w.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.