ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparison of the mechanical properties of polyetheretherketone and polyphenylene sulfone produced by fused filament fabrication and conventional manufacturing methods for dental applications: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdditive manufacturing of thermoplastic polymers via fused filament fabrication (FFF) is gaining popularity because of its time and cost efficiency. Semicrystalline polyetheretherketone (PEEK) requires extensive postprocessing, whereas amorphous polyphenylene sulfone (PPSU) offers greater predictability and reliability. The purpose of this study was to compare the mechanical properties of PPSU, which is a new material for dental applications, and PEEK to evaluate the effects of different manufacturing methods on the mechanical properties of these materials.
methodsThis study used a PEEK disc (Juvora Dental Disc, Juvora, UK) for subtractive CAD-CAM method-fabricated samples (PEEK-CG), a pure PEEK filament (Vestakeep i4 3DF filament, Evonik Industries AG, Germany) for FFF-fabricated samples (PEEK-3D), a pure PPSU filament (FIL-A GEHR, Gehr Plastics Inc., Germany) for FFF-fabricated PPSU samples (PPSU-3D), and a bulk PPSU material (Radel R-5000 NT, Solvay, France) for injection-molded samples (PPSU-INJ). A total of 80 samples (n = 20 per group) were tested. Half were evaluated for three-point bending (n = 10 per material), and the rest were evaluated for Vickers hardness (n = 10 per material). The Kruskal‒Wallis H test was used for between-group comparisons, and the Mann‒Whitney U test was used for pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05).
resultsPEEK-CG, with a flexural strength of 299.69 ± 12.26 MPa, a Young’s modulus of 8.92 ± 0.28 GPa, a flexural stress at 3.5% strain of 6.97 ± 0.65 MPa, and a Vickers hardness of 40.02 ± 10.38 kg/mm², significantly outperformed PEEK-3D (P < 0.05). PPSU-INJ outperformed PPSU-3D in all tests, with significant differences only in Young’s modulus (P = 0.013), with other differences not significant (P > 0.05). PEEK-3D outperformed PPSU-3D with a flexural strength of 220.75 ± 12.07 MPa, a Young’s modulus of 7.05 ± 0.94 GPa, a flexural stress at 3.5% strain of 3.94 ± 0.42 MPa, and a Vickers hardness of 21.48 ± 2.69 kg/mm² (P < 0.05).
conclusionsPPSU, with mechanical properties analogous to those of PEEK, meets the standards established for use in dental applications. These applications include its use as a fixed denture infrastructure, implant material, and removable denture clasps. The mechanical properties of 3D-printed PEEK and PPSU were found to be inferior to those of other methods, highlighting the need for improved additive manufacturing parameters.
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.