Retentive force of PEEK secondary crowns on zirconia primary crowns over time
- 224 Downloads
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the retentive forces of CAD/CAM-fabricated polyetheretherketone (PEEK) secondary crowns on zirconia primary crowns over an artificial aging period representing 10 years of clinical service and compare them to electroformed secondary crowns made from pure gold.
Material and methods
Implant-supported zirconia primary crowns (N = 20) were CAD/CAM milled and provided either with electroformed secondary crowns (group ZE; N = 10) or CAD/CAM-fabricated PEEK secondary crowns (group ZP; N = 10). All secondary crowns were attached to a casted tertiary structure to ensure adequate stability. A universal testing machine was used to determine the retentive force values at baseline and after 1, 3, 5, and 10 years of simulated aging in the presence of artificial saliva. Data were analyzed applying Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U test. Level of significance was set at p < 0.05.
Retentive forces were not different for the groups ZE and ZP at baseline (median ZE 2.85 N; ZP 2.8 N; p ≤ 0.218). Because retentive force values changed significantly over simulation time for group ZE (Kruskal-Wallis; p ≤ 0.028), the values between the test groups ZE and ZP differed significantly (Mann-Whitney U) at 5 years (ZE 3.03 N; ZP 2.76 N; p ≤ 0.003) and 10 years (ZE 3.1 N; ZP 2.78 N; p ≤ 0.011).
PEEK secondary crowns exhibit stable retentive force values over 10 years of simulated aging showing no signs of deterioration while the retentive force values of electroformed secondary crowns increase over time.
PEEK might be a suitable alternative to proven metallic materials for the fabrication of secondary crowns.
KeywordsCAD/CAM Double crowns Electroforming Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Retentive force Implant prosthetics Zirconia
The authors thank Zirkonzahn (Gais, Italy) for supporting this investigation.
The work was financially supported by Zirkonzahn, Gais, Italy.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 2.Starr W (1886) Removable bridge-work. - porcelain cap-crowns. The Dental cosmos; a monthly record of dental science 28 (1):17–19Google Scholar
- 5.Rammelsberg P, Bernhart G, Lorenzo Bermejo J, Schmitter M, Schwarz S (2014) Prognosis of implants and abutment teeth under combined tooth-implant-supported and solely implant-supported double-crown-retained removable dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 25(7):813–818. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12197 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Böttger H (1953) Die prothetische Versorgung des Lü̧ckengebisses mit Teleskopprothesen. Zahnärztl Rundsch (62):18–23Google Scholar
- 8.Hofmann M (1966) Die Versorgung von Gebissen mit einzelstehenden Restzähnen mittels sog. Cover-Denture-Prothesen. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 21:478–482Google Scholar
- 21.Faber F, Huber C (2001) Electroformed telescope crowns – a hydraulic system. J Dent Res 80(Spec Iss):551Google Scholar
- 22.Schwindling FS, Lehmann F, Terebesi S, Corcodel N, Zenthofer A, Rammelsberg P, Stober T (2017) Electroplated telescopic retainers with zirconia primary crowns: 3-year results from a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 21(9):2653–2660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2067-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Kurtz SM, Devine JN (2007) PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials 28(32):4845–4869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.013 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 29.Skinner HB (1988) Composite technology for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res (235):224-236Google Scholar
- 32.Wimmer T, Huffmann AM, Eichberger M, Schmidlin PR, Stawarczyk B (2016) Two-body wear rate of PEEK, CAD/CAM resin composite and PMMA: effect of specimen geometries, antagonist materials and test set-up configuration. Dent Mater 32(6):e127–e136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.03.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Stock V, Schmidlin PR, Merk S, Wagner C, Roos M, Eichberger M, Stawarczyk B (2016) PEEK primary crowns with cobalt-chromium, zirconia and galvanic secondary crowns with different tapers-a comparison of retention forces. Materials (Basel) 9(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9030187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Wagner C, Stock V, Merk S, Schmidlin PR, Roos M, Eichberger M, stawarczyk B (2018) Retention load of telescopic crowns with different taper angles between cobalt-chromium and polyetheretherketone made with three different manufacturing processes examined by pull-off test. J Prosthodont 27(2):162–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar