Abaza, T., Kamal, M., Hamza, T. (2023). Fracture Resistance and Finite Element Analysis of Single-piece PEEK Implant Restorative System Versus Titanium Single-piece Implant Restorative System: In-vitro Study. Journal of Fundamental and Clinical Research, 3(2), 154-169. doi: 10.21608/jfcr.2023.217235.1050
Tharwat Abaza; Mostafa Hussien Kamal; Tamer Hamza. "Fracture Resistance and Finite Element Analysis of Single-piece PEEK Implant Restorative System Versus Titanium Single-piece Implant Restorative System: In-vitro Study". Journal of Fundamental and Clinical Research, 3, 2, 2023, 154-169. doi: 10.21608/jfcr.2023.217235.1050
Abaza, T., Kamal, M., Hamza, T. (2023). 'Fracture Resistance and Finite Element Analysis of Single-piece PEEK Implant Restorative System Versus Titanium Single-piece Implant Restorative System: In-vitro Study', Journal of Fundamental and Clinical Research, 3(2), pp. 154-169. doi: 10.21608/jfcr.2023.217235.1050
Abaza, T., Kamal, M., Hamza, T. Fracture Resistance and Finite Element Analysis of Single-piece PEEK Implant Restorative System Versus Titanium Single-piece Implant Restorative System: In-vitro Study. Journal of Fundamental and Clinical Research, 2023; 3(2): 154-169. doi: 10.21608/jfcr.2023.217235.1050
Fracture Resistance and Finite Element Analysis of Single-piece PEEK Implant Restorative System Versus Titanium Single-piece Implant Restorative System: In-vitro Study
1Department of Conservative Dentistry, Fixed Prosthodontics Division, Misr International University
2Lecturer of Fixed Prosthodontics Conservative Dentistry Department, Fixed Prosthodontic Division, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Misr International University, Cairo, Egypt
3Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al Azhar University Dean of Dentistry, Badr University
Abstract
Aim: To compare the fracture resistance and stress distribution of titanium one-piece implant restorative system with one-piece PEEK implant restorative system. Materials and Methods: 16 implants were divided into into two groups (n=8): titanium implants (Group Ti) and PEEK implants (Group P). All the samples received PEEK crowns simulating a lower premolar. Prefabricated one-piece titanium implants were scanned to be replicated into PEEK implants. Implants were imbedded in epoxy resin bases; the abutments were scanned, and the PEEK crowns were designed using a biogeneric copy on ExoCAD software. Crowns were pressed and cemented to their respective abutments. Fracture resistance test was assessed using a universal testing machine with a 5kN static load at crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was conducted to evaluate stress distribution under various loading scenarios simulating oral conditions. Results: Group Ti showed significantly higher fracture resistance compared to the Group P (P < 0.001, Effect size = 2.519). Significant difference was found in failure modes between the groups (P < 0.001, Effect size = 1); Group P demonstrated higher prevalence of catastrophic failures in fixtures. FEA revealed higher Von Mises stresses in PEEK than in titanium under various loading conditions. Conclusion: Titanium showed superior fracture resistance when compared to PEEK. Titanium distributed stresses to supporting structures in a more favorable manner than PEEK. These findings highlight the limitations of PEEK as an implant material. Titanium remains a more suitable choice in terms of fracture resistance and stress distribution.
View on SCiNiTO
Top