PEEK Versus PFM Implant Supported Superstructure

Assessment of Peri-Implant Tissues Surrounding PEEK and Porcelain Fused to Metal Superstructures in Posterior Region (Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial)

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of two superstructure materials Porcelain Fused to Metal (PFM) and PEEK on peri- implant soft and hard tissue reaction clinically.

Nowadays the use of dental implants for restoring missing teeth has gained a wide acceptance, due to its high success rate.

Dental implants differ from natural teeth in transmission of functional loads to the bone, where natural teeth and their periodontal ligaments provide proprioception, early detection of occlusal loads and have a shock-absorbing function. Sensitivity and mobility of natural teeth cannot be duplicated in osseointegrated implants,1 therefore most of the forces are concentrated at the crest of the ridge leading to different living reaction including bone resorption and subsequent implant loss.

Minimizing the occlusal loads on osseointegrated implants through selection of a new superstructure material that can absorb part of this excessive force could be believed to be a determining factor in the long-term success of an implant treatment program.

Many restorative materials are used nowadays for construction of final restoration of implant supported superstructures including porcelain fused to metal (PFM), all ceramic, zirconia, hybrid ceramics, and polyetheretherketone (PEEK). PFM restorations are still considered as the gold standard because of their excellent biocompatibility, consistent esthetics, superior strength, and marginal adaptation. Recently, the use of new resilient superstructure material like PEEK-based restoration on implant prosthetics could modify the occlusal forces with subsequent cushioning during function.

Inclusion criteria:

• Patients above 18 years old.
• Patients able to read and sign the informed consent document.
• Medically free patients or with controlled systemic disease.
• Patients with good bone quality and quantity.
• Patients willing to return for follow-up examinations and evaluation.
• Patients having single successfully osseointegrated implant in posterior region.

Exclusion criteria

• Young patients in growth stage.
• Patients with unsuitable implantation sites (patients with major boney defects or sever bone resorption)
• Pregnant women to avoid any complication that may occur in dental office.
• Patients with uncontrolled systemic disease (hypertensive patient or uncontrolled diabetic patient)
• Psychiatric problems or unrealistic expectations.
• Multiple adjacent missing teeth.
• Patients with bad oral hygiene.