ArticlePolymers2022
The Structural Integrity and Fracture Behaviour of Teeth Restored with PEEK and Lithium-Disilicate Glass Ceramic Crowns.
Article in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Biofilm Formation on Three High-Performance Polymeric CAD/CAM Composites: An In Vitro Study.Polymers · 2025Article
- Fracture resistance and mode of failure of modified Polyether-ether-ketone versus lithium disilicate endocrowns.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparative Assessment of Post-Fatigue Resistance of Mandibular First Molars Restored With Polyether Ether Ketone and Lithium Disilicate Endocrowns.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
- Article
- Barrier Membrane in Regenerative Therapy: A Narrative Review.Membranes · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is a unique polymer material which has recently been introduced to dentistry. This study aimed to assess the structural integrity of PEEK as a posterior tooth crown and compared it with ceramic-based material. A total of 31 monolithic CAD-CAM PEEK (JuvoraTM, Strumann, Andover, MA, USA) crowns and 31 lithium disilicate (IPS e.max®CAD, Voclar Vivadent AG, Liechtenstein) crowns were created and cemented on dentin-like teeth (AlphaDie®MF, Schütz Dental GmbH, Rosbach, Germany) in a precise procedure mimicking the physical and mechanical properties of natural teeth and periodontal ligaments. A static compressive strength test using a universal testing machine and a dynamic fatigue test using a chewing simulator machine were used until crown failure to assess the fracture behaviour by mode of fracture (fractographic analysis) and 3D digital subtraction analysis. The results showed that PEEK has a greater fracture resistance than IPS e.max®CAD by 2060 N to 703 N. Additionally, in fatigue limit, IPS e.max®CAD showed a constant failure under 2.0 Kg (=320 N) before 5000 chewing cycles while PEEK survived at a significantly higher load > 11 Kg (930 N). Furthermore, PEEK showed a continued survival at >1,250,000 cycles while the mean fatigue life of IPS e.max®CAD was around 133,470 cycles. PEEK illustrated a significantly less catastrophic failure mode with some plastic deformation at the fractographic stereomicroscope and in the 3D digital subtraction analysis. Using PEEK for crowns looks very promising, however, further clinical studies are required to assure this study’s results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.