Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34560810›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2022

Mechanical Response of PEKK and PEEK As Frameworks for Implant-Supported Full-Arch Fixed Dental Prosthesis: 3D Finite Element Analysis.

Regina Furbino Villefort, Pedro Jacy Santos Diamantino, Sandra Lúcia Ventorin von Zeidler, Alexandre Luiz Souto Borges, Laís Regiane Silva-Concílio, Guilherme deSiqueira Ferreira Anzaloni Saavedra, João Paulo Mendes Tribst

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Regina Furbino VillefortFederal University of Espírito Santo, Rede Nordeste de Biotecnologia, Vitória, Espírito Santo, Brazil.
Pedro Jacy Santos DiamantinoDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University, São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil.
Sandra Lúcia Ventorin von ZeidlerFederal University of Espírito Santo, Rede Nordeste de Biotecnologia, Vitória, Espírito Santo, Brazil.
Alexandre Luiz Souto BorgesDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University, São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil.
Laís Regiane Silva-ConcílioDepartment of Dentistry, University of Taubaté, Taubaté, São Paulo, Brazil.
Guilherme deSiqueira Ferreira Anzaloni SaavedraDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University, São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil.
João Paulo Mendes TribstDepartment of Dentistry, University of Taubaté, Taubaté, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePolymeric framework represent an innovative approach for implant-supported dental prostheses. However, the mechanical response of ultra-high performance polymers as frameworks for full-arch prostheses under the "all-on-four concept" remains unclear. The present study applied finite element analysis to examine the behavior of polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) prosthetic frameworks. MATERIALS AND

methodsA three-dimensional maxillary model received four axially positioned morse-taper implants, over which a polymeric bar was simulated. The full-arch prosthesis was created from a previously reported database model, and the imported geometries were divided into a mesh composed of nodes and tetrahedral elements in the analysis software. The materials were assumed as isotropic, elastic, and homogeneous, and all contacts were considered bonded. A normal load (500 N magnitude) was applied at the occlusal surface of the first left molar after the model was fixed at the base of the cortical bone. The microstrain and von-Mises stress were selected as criteria for analysis.

resultsSimilarities in the mechanical response were observed in both framework for the peri-implant tissue, as well as for stress generated in the implants (263-264 MPa) and abutments (274-273 MPa). The prosthetic screw and prosthetic base concentrated more stress with PEEK (211 and 58 MPa, respectively) than with PEKK (192 and 49 MPa), while the prosthetic framework showed the opposite behavior (59 MPa for PEEK and 67 MPa for PEKK).

conclusionThe main differences related to the mechanical behavior of PEKK and PEEK frameworks for full-arch prostheses under the "all-on-four concept" were reflected in the prosthetic screw and the acrylic base. The superior shock absorbance of PEKK resulted in a lower stress concentration on the prosthetic screw and prosthetic base. This would clinically represent a lower fracture risk on the acrylic base and screw loosening. Conversely, lower stress concentration was observed on PEEK frameworks.

Identifiers

PMID34560810
PMCPMC8890915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.