ArticleActa odontologica latinoamericana : AOL2023
Precision of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) or cobalt-chrome implant bar fit to implants after mechanical cycling.
Article in Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Based on its mechanical properties, PEEK (polyether-ether-ketone) might be useful in restorative procedures. In oral rehabilitation, its viability has been studied mainly for prostheses and dental implants.
aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate the fit accuracy of dental implant bars made of either PEEK or cobalt-chrome submitted to cycling mechanics. MATERIALS AND
methodThis was an experimental in vitro study, where units were treated with two implants and mini-abutments, joined by cobalt-chrome or polyether-ether-ketone PEEK bars. A total 20 bars were prepared (n=10 per group) and subjected to mechanical cycling tests (1 million cycles on the distal cantilever of the bar in the vertical direction, 120N and sinusoidal loading, at a frequency of 2Hz). The fit at the abutment/implant interface was measured before and after cycling, and the counter-torque of the vertical screw of the mini abutments was measured after cycling, using a digital torquemeter. Data were analyzed by three-way ANOVA and Tukey's test at 5% significance level.
resultsNo statistically significant interaction was found among the three factors considered (bar material, implant positioning and mechanical cycling) (p = 0.592). No significant difference was identified in the interaction between bar material and implant positioning (p = 0.321), or between implant positioning and mechanical cycling (p = 0.503). The association between bar material and mechanical cycling was statistically significant (p = 0.007), with the cobalt-chrome bar resulting in greater misfit with mechanical cycling. There was no difference in counter-torque values between groups.
conclusionsThe PEEK bar provided better fit of the mini abutments to the implants, even after mechanical cycling. The counter-torque of the screws was similar in all scenarios considered.
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.