Home Articles List Article Information
Alexandria Dental Journal
Journal Archive
Volume Volume 49 (2024)
Volume Volume 48 (2023)
Volume Volume 47 (2022)
Volume Volume 46 (2021)
Volume Volume 45 (2020)
Volume Volume 44 (2019)
Volume Volume 43 (2018)
Volume Volume 42 (2017)
Volume Volume 41 (2016)
Volume Volume 40 (2015)
Kassem, Y., Alshimy, A., El-Shabrawy, S. (2019). MECHANICAL EVALUATION OF POLYETHERETHERKETONE COMPARED WITH ZIRCONIA AS A DENTAL IMPLANT MATERIAL. Alexandria Dental Journal, 44(2), 61-66. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.57364
Youssef M. Kassem; Ahmad M. Alshimy; Sonia M. El-Shabrawy. "MECHANICAL EVALUATION OF POLYETHERETHERKETONE COMPARED WITH ZIRCONIA AS A DENTAL IMPLANT MATERIAL". Alexandria Dental Journal, 44, 2, 2019, 61-66. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.57364
Kassem, Y., Alshimy, A., El-Shabrawy, S. (2019). 'MECHANICAL EVALUATION OF POLYETHERETHERKETONE COMPARED WITH ZIRCONIA AS A DENTAL IMPLANT MATERIAL', Alexandria Dental Journal, 44(2), pp. 61-66. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.57364
Kassem, Y., Alshimy, A., El-Shabrawy, S. MECHANICAL EVALUATION OF POLYETHERETHERKETONE COMPARED WITH ZIRCONIA AS A DENTAL IMPLANT MATERIAL. Alexandria Dental Journal, 2019; 44(2): 61-66. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.57364

MECHANICAL EVALUATION OF POLYETHERETHERKETONE COMPARED WITH ZIRCONIA AS A DENTAL IMPLANT MATERIAL

Article 10, Volume 44, Issue 2, August 2019, Page 61-66  XML PDF (175.12 K)
DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.57364
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Youssef M. Kassem1; Ahmad M. Alshimy2; Sonia M. El-Shabrawy3
1Demonstrator of dental biomaterials, Dental biomaterials department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
2Professor and head of the department of removable prosthodontics, Removable prosthodontics department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
3Professor and head of the department of dental biomaterials, Dental biomaterials department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Dental implants are currently one of the main pillars of restorative dentistry. Titanium and its alloys were and still are the gold standard for dental implant materials. However, Titanium is not a perfect material and has many drawbacks thus the search for a more ideal material is ongoing. Zirconia and Polyetheretherketone are two viable alternatives to titanium as dental implant materials. They show different mechanical behavior invitro and invivo, so they are investigated and compared to each other. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate and compare the different material properties of Polyetheretherketone and yttrium-stabilized tetragonal polycrystalline zirconia when used as dental implant material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Microbars of zirconia and Polyetheretherketone were prepared using precision cutter and low speed micro motor under water cooling and used to assess the following properties for the two materials: 1) Vickers Microhardness 2) Flexural strength before and after cyclic loading RESULTS: There was a highly significant difference between hardness of zirconia and Polyetheretherketone. There was also a highly significant difference between flexural strength of zirconia and Polyetheretherketone (both before and after cyclic loading). There was significant decrease in flexural strength of zirconia after cyclic loading. No significant difference was found for Polyetheretherketone after cyclic loading. CONCLUSIONS: Polyetheretherketone is a promising alternative to titanium and zirconium as a dental implant material.
Keywords
dental implant; flexural strength; hardness; PEEK; Zirconia
Main Subjects
Dental biomaterials
References
  1. Chappuis V, Buser R, Brägger U, Bornstein MM, Salvi GE, Buser D. Long-Term Outcomes of Dental Implants with a Titanium Plasma-Sprayed Surface: A 20-Year Prospective Case Series Study in Partially Edentulous Patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013;15:780–90.
  2. Brånemark PI, Adell R, Breine U, Hansson BO, Lindström J, Ohlsson A. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1969;3:81–100.
  3. Velasco-Ortega E, Jos A, Cameán AM, Pato-Mourelo J, Segura-Egea JJ. In vitro evaluation of cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of a commercial titanium alloy for dental implantology. Mutat Res - Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2010;702:17–23.
  4. Javed F, Al-Hezaimi K, Almas K, Romanos GE. Is Titanium Sensitivity Associated with Allergic Reactions in Patients with Dental Implants? A Systematic Review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013;15:47–52.
  5. Huiskes R, Weinans H, van Rietbergen B. The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;:124–34.
  6. Aydin C, Yilmaz H, Bankoǧlu M. A single-tooth, two-piece zirconia implant located in the anterior maxilla: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109:70–4.
  7. Andreiotelli M, Wenz HJ, Kohal RJ. Are ceramic implants a viable alternative to titanium implants? A systematic literature review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:32–47.
  8. Schwitalla A, Müller W-D. PEEK dental implants: a review of the literature. J Oral Implantol. 2013;39:743–9.
  9. Depprich R, Naujoks C, Ommerborn M, Schwarz F, Kübler NR, Handschel J. Current findings regarding zirconia implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16:124–37. 
  10. Kohal RJ, Klaus G, Strub JR. Zirconia-implant-supported all-ceramic crowns withstand long-term load: A pilot investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17:565–71.
  11. Lucas TJ, Lawson NC, Janowski GM, Burgess JO. Effect of grain size on the monoclinic transformation, hardness, roughness, and modulus of aged partially stabilized zirconia. Dent Mater. 2015;31:1487–92.
  12. van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M, Naert I, Maffei G, Jacobs R. Marginal bone loss around implants retaining hinging mandibular overdentures, at 4-, 8- and 12-years follow-up. J Clin Periodontol. 2001;28:628–33.
  13. Moon SM, Ingalhalikar A, Highsmith JM, Vaccaro AR. Biomechanical rigidity of an all-polyetheretherketone anterior thoracolumbar spinal reconstruction construct: an in vitro corpectomy model. Spine J. Elsevier Inc; 2009;9:330–5.
  14. Skinner H. Composite Technology for Total Hip Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;235:224–36.
  15. Barkarmo S, Wennerberg A, Hoffman M, Kjellin P, Breding K, Handa P, et al. Nano-hydroxyapatite-coated PEEK implants: A pilot study in rabbit bone. J Biomed Mater Res - Part A. 2013;101 A:465–71. 
  16. Lee WT, Koak JY, Lim YJ, Kim SK, Kwon HB, Kim MJ. Stress shielding and fatigue limits of poly-ether-etherketone dental implants. J Biomed Mater Res - Part B Appl Biomater. 2012;100 B:1044–52.
  17. Kurtz SM, Devine JN. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials. 2007. p. 4845–69.
  18. Specimens P, Materials EI. Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials 1. 2010:1–11.
  19. Ewais OH, Al Abbassy F, Ghoneim MM, Aboushelib MN. Novel zirconia surface treatments for enhanced osseointegration: Laboratory characterization. Int J Dent. 2014;2014.
  20. Schatz C, Strickstrock M, Roos M, Edelhoff D, Eichberger M, Zylla IM, et al. Influence of specimen preparation and test methods on the flexural strength results of monolithic zirconia materials. Materials. 2016;9:1–13.
  21. C1161-13 A. Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Advanced Ceramics at Ambient. Annu B ASTM Stand. 2008;94:1–16.
  22. Goyal RK, Tiwari AN, Negi YS. Microhardness of PEEK / ceramic micro- and nanocomposites : Correlation with Halpin – Tsai model. Mater Sci Eng A. 2008;491:230–6.
  23. Kohal RJ, Wolkewitz M, Tsakona A. The effects of cyclic loading and preparation on the fracture strength of zirconium-dioxide implants: An in vitro investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22:808–14.
  24. Kirkpatrick LA, Feeney BC. A simple guide to IBM SPSS: for version 20.0. Nelson Education; 2012.
  25. Najeeb S, BDS ZK, BDS SZ, BDS MSZ. Bioactivity and Osseointegration of PEEK Are Inferior to Those of Titanium: A Systematic Review. J Oral Implantol. 2016;42:512–6.
  26. Velasco-Ortega E, Jos A, Cameán AM, Pato-Mourelo J, Segura-Egea JJ. In vitro evaluation of cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of a commercial titanium alloy for dental implantology. Mutat Res - Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. Elsevier B.V.; 2010;702:17–2
  27. Camarini ET, Tomeh JK, Dias RR, da Silva EJ. Reconstruction of Frontal Bone Using Specific Implant Polyether-Ether-Ketone. J Craniofac Surg. 2011;22:2205– 7.
  28. Stawarczyk B, Eichberger M, Uhrenbacher J, Wimmer T, Edelhoff D, Schmidlin PR. Three-unit reinforced polyetheretherketone composite FDPs: Influence of fabrication method on load-bearing capacity and failure types. Dental materials journal. 2015 Jan 30;34:7-12.
  29. Salihoglu Yener E, Ozcan M, Kazazoglu E. A comparative study of biaxial flexural strength and Vickers microhardness of different zirconia materials: Effect of glazing and thermal cycling. Brazilian Dent Sci. 2015;18:19.
  30. Panayotov IV, Orti V, Cuisinier F, Yachouh J. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for medical applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2016;27.
  31. Pittayachawan P, McDonald A, Petrie A, Knowles JC. The biaxial flexural strength and fatigue property of LavaTM YTZP dental ceramic. Dent Mater. 2007;23:1018–29.
  32. Vagkopoulou T, Koutayas SO, Koidis P, Strub JR. Zirconia in dentistry: Part 1. Discovering the nature of an upcoming bioceramic. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2009;4:130–51.
  33. Murali Ramamoorthi, Vivek Verma ZS. Dental biomaterials and a novel composite of Zirconia and Poly Ether Ether Ketone [ PEEK ] for dental implants Dental biomaterials and a novel composite of Zirconia and Poly Ether Ether Ketone [ PEEK ] for dental implants. 2015;2:16–22.
  34. Goyal RK, Tiwari AN, Negi YS. Microhardness of PEEK / ceramic micro- and nanocomposites : Correlation with Halpin – Tsai model. 2008;491:230–6.
  35. Wang L, Weng L, Wu Z, Wang C. The Properties of Polyetheretherketone Biocomposite Reinforced By. 2015;1096:214–8.
  36. Aboushelib MN, Wang H, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Fatigue behavior of zirconia under different loading conditions. Dent Mater. The Academy of Dental Materials; 2016;32:915–20.
  37. Schwitalla AD, Spintig T, Kallage I, Müller WD. Flexural behavior of PEEK materials for dental application. Dent Mater. The Academy of Dental Materials; 2015;31:1377– 84.
  38. Selvam S. Development and Investigation of Mechanical Properties of PEEK Fine Particles Reinforced UHMWPE Composites. 2016;11:1298–303.
  39. Schambron T, Lowe A, McGregor H V. Effects of environmental ageing on the static and cyclic bending properties of braided carbon fibre/PEEK bone plates. Compos Part B Eng. 2008;39:1216–20.
  40. Dworak M, Rudawski A, Markowski J, Blazewicz S. Dynamic mechanical properties of carbon fibre-reinforced PEEK composites in simulated body-fluid. Compos Struct. Elsevier Ltd; 2017;161:428–34. 
Statistics
Article View: 591
PDF Download: 1,442