PEEK Biomaterial in Long-Term Provisional Implant Restorations: A Review
Source abstract
Abstract
Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has become a useful polymeric biomaterial due to its superior properties and has been increasingly used in dentistry, especially in prosthetic dentistry and dental implantology. Promising applications of PEEK in dentistry are dental implants, temporary abutment, implant-supported provisional crowns, fixed prosthesis, removable denture framework, and finger prosthesis. PEEK as a long-term provisional implant restoration has not been studied much. Hence, this review article aims to review PEEK as a long-term provisional implant restoration for applications focusing on implant dentistry. Articles published in English on PEEK biomaterial for long-term provisional implant restoration were searched in Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Scopus. Then, relevant articles were selected and included in this literature review. PEEK presents suitable properties for various implant components in implant dentistry, including temporary and long-term provisional restorations. The modifications of PEEK result in wider applications in clinical dentistry. The PEEK reinforced by 30–50% carbon fibers can be a suitable material for the various implant components in dentistry.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
Department of Clinical Dentistry, Walailak University International College of Dentistry, Walailak University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
References (54)
Show source-provided references
1. Management of obstructive sleep apnea with implant retained mandibular advancement device10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1285 ↗
2. Effect of the location of dental mini-implants on strain distribution under mandibular kennedy class 1 implant-retained removable partial dentures10.1155/2021/6688521 ↗
3. Rattanapanich, P., Aunmeungtong, W., Chaijareenont, P., and Khongkhunthian, P. (2019). Comparative study between an immediate loading protocol using the digital workflow and a conventional protocol for dental implant treatment: A randomized clinical trial. J. Clin. Med., 8.10.3390/jcm8050622 ↗
4. Removal torque evaluation of three different abutment screws for single implant restorations after mechanical cyclic loading
5. Titanium allergy in dental implant patients: A clinical study on 1500 consecutive patients10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01544.x ↗
6. Modification of titanium alloys for dental applications10.1007/978-3-030-56413-1_2 ↗
7. Advances in polymeric materials for dental applications10.1039/C6PY01957A ↗
8. Polymeric materials and films in dentistry: An overview10.1016/j.jare.2018.05.001 ↗
9. Choupin, T. (2017). Mechanical Performances of Pekk Thermoplastic Composites Linked to Their Processing Parameters, Paris Institue of Technology, ENSAM.
10. Polyetherketoneketone (pekk): An emerging biomaterial for oral implants and dental prostheses10.1016/j.jare.2020.09.004 ↗
11. Synthesis and properties of novel copolymers of poly(ether ketone diphenyl ketone ether ketone ketone) and poly(ether amide ether amide ether ketone ketone)10.1002/pen.23721 ↗
12. Applications of polyetheretherketone (peek) in oral implantology and prosthodontics10.1016/j.jpor.2015.10.001 ↗
13. Abhay, S.S., Ganapathy, D., Veeraiyan, D.N., Ariga, P., Heboyan, A., Amornvit, P., Rokaya, D., and Srimaneepong, V. (2021). Wear resistance, color stability and displacement resistance of milled peek crowns compared to zirconia crowns under stimulated chewing and high-performance aging. Polymers, 13.10.3390/polym13213761 ↗
14. Clinical application of peek as a provisional fixed dental prosthesis retained by reciprocated guide surfaces of healing abutments during dental implant treatment10.11607/jomi.8465 ↗
15. Papathanasiou, I., Kamposiora, P., Papavasiliou, G., and Ferrari, M. (2020). The use of peek in digital prosthodontics: A narrative review. BMC Oral Health, 20.10.1186/s12903-020-01202-7 ↗
16. Using modified polyetheretherketone (peek) as an alternative material for endocrown restorations: A short-term clinical report10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.08.009 ↗
17. The use of a modified poly-ether-ether-ketone (peek) as an alternative framework material for removable dental prostheses. A clinical report10.1111/jopr.12325 ↗
18. Peek biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.013 ↗
19. 3d-printed peek implant for mandibular defects repair—A new method10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104335 ↗
20. Poly-ether-ether-ketone (peek): A review
21. Three-unit reinforced polyetheretherketone composite fdps: Influence of fabrication method on load-bearing capacity and failure types10.4012/dmj.2013-345 ↗
22. The role of polyether ether ketone (peek) in dentistry—A review10.25122/jml-2019-0003 ↗
23. Nanomodified peek dental implants: Bioactive composites and surface modification—A review10.1155/2015/381759 ↗
24. Fracture strength and failure mode of maxillary implant-supported provisional single crowns: A comparison of composite resin crowns fabricated directly over peek abutments and solid titanium abutments10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00322.x ↗
25. Modified peek as an alternative crown framework material for weak abutment teeth: A case report
26. Applications of peek in implant retained finger prosthesis
27. Evaluation of the use of peek material in implant-supported fixed restorations by finite element analysis10.4103/njcp.njcp_144_19 ↗
28. Modified peek resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis as an interim restoration after implant placement10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.04.024 ↗
29. Stress shielding and fatigue limits of poly-ether-ether-ketone dental implants10.1002/jbm.b.32669 ↗
30. Mechanical and biological characteristics of diamond-like carbon coated poly aryl-ether-ether-ketone10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.07.054 ↗
31. Peek materials as an alternative to titanium in dental implants: A systematic review10.1111/cid.12706 ↗
32. Brum, R.S., Labes, L.G., Volpato CÂ, M., Benfatti, C.A.M., and Pimenta, A.L. (2020). Strategies to reduce biofilm formation in peek materials applied to implant dentistry-a comprehensive review. Antibiotics, 9.10.3390/antibiotics9090609 ↗
33. Huang, R., Liu, Y., Huang, B., Zhou, F., Chen, Z., and Li, Z. (2021). Improved accuracy of digital implant impressions with newly designed scan bodies: An in vivo evaluation in beagle dogs. BMC Oral Health, 21.10.1186/s12903-021-01986-2 ↗
34. Digital process for an implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis: A clinical report10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.03.022 ↗
35. Displacement of scan body during screw tightening: A comparative in vitro study10.4047/jap.2020.12.5.307 ↗
36. Albdour, E.A., Shaheen, E., Vranckx, M., Mangano, F.G., Politis, C., and Jacobs, R. (2018). A novel in vivo method to evaluate trueness of digital impressions. BMC Oral Health, 18.10.1186/s12903-018-0580-9 ↗
37. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.10.029 ↗
38. Comparison of accuracy of current ten intraoral scanners10.1155/2021/2673040 ↗
39. Clinical and laboratory passive fit assessment of implant-supported zirconia restorations fabricated using conventional and digital workflow10.1111/cid.12885 ↗
40. Accuracy comparison of implant impression techniques: A systematic review10.1111/cid.12310 ↗
41. Integrating digital technologies in dentistry to enhance the clinical success
42. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: An in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation10.1111/clr.13598 ↗
43. Yuzbasioglu, E., Kurt, H., Turunc, R., and Bilir, H. (2014). Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: Evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health, 14.10.1186/1472-6831-14-10 ↗
44. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: Effect of implant angulation and connection type10.1155/2018/3761750 ↗
45. Effect of different surface pretreatments and adhesives on the load-bearing capacity of veneered 3-unit peek fdps10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.06.006 ↗
46. Rodríguez, V., Tobar, C., López-Suárez, C., Peláez, J., and Suárez, M.J. (2021). Fracture load of metal, zirconia and polyetheretherketone posterior cad-cam milled fixed partial denture frameworks. Materials, 14.10.3390/ma14040959 ↗
47. The applicability of peek-based abutment screws10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.06.024 ↗
48. Carbon fiber-reinforced peek in implant dentistry: A scoping review on the finite element method10.1080/10255842.2021.1888939 ↗
49. Fracture resistance of abutment screws made of titanium, polyetheretherketone, and carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2014.vol28.0028 ↗
50. Maximum insertion torque of a novel implant-abutment-interface design for peek dental implants10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.09.005 ↗
51. Guo, C., Liu, X., and Liu, G. (2021). Surface finishing of fdm-fabricated amorphous polyetheretherketone and its carbon-fiber-reinforced composite by dry milling. Polymers, 13.10.3390/polym13132175 ↗
52. Behavior of polyether-ether-ketone (peek) in prostheses on dental implants. A review
53. Polyetheretherketone in implant prosthodontics: A scoping review10.11607/ijp.6649 ↗
54. Bacterial leakage and bending moments of screw-retained, composite-veneered peek implant crowns10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.11.027 ↗