SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2023
Complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses fabricated with PEEK and PEKK framework: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluate the clinical performance of Bio-HPP and Vitallium frameworks in free-end removable partial dentures.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Revolutionizing Dental Polymers: The Versatility and Future Potential of Polyetheretherketone in Restorative Dentistry.Polymers · 2024Review
- Review
- A New Full Digital Workflow for Fixed Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Full-Arch Edentulism Using the All-on-4 Concept.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the performance of complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) fabricated with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) framework in clinical cases. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis systematic review followed the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews with the number CRD42023399494. The electronic database PubMed, Cochrane Library and EBSCOhost were assessed for clinical research and reports on complete-arch implant-supported FDPs fabricated with PEEK and PEKK framework. Human studies with a minimum follow-up of 1 year and published in an English language were the only ones included.
resultsThe initial database and hand search provided 564 articles. Finally, 12 articles published between 2018 and 2022 were included in this systematic review. The mean follow-up ranged from 1 year to 6 years. The included studies reported 119 (114 PEEK, 5 PEKK) complete-arch implant-supported FDPs during 1 year follow-up. The cumulative survival rate of prostheses with PEEK as a framework was 97.3%. Prostheses fractures and complications were found with both PEEK and PEKK frameworks. No implant failure reported with both PEEK and PEKK prostheses.
conclusionIn short-term follow-up, the complete-arch implant-supported FDPs with PEEK as a framework showed a good survival rate and acceptable health of the supporting tissues. The PEEK framework had shown adhesion issues as the most common prosthetic complication. Limited data were available on PEKK as framework material, so further long-term clinical trials are required.
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.