ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Evaluation of the Translucency of Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Veneered With Two Different Materials: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionModern dentistry seeks materials with enhanced aesthetics and properties for restorations. While polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is promising, its low translucency necessitates veneering for visible areas. Lithium disilicate glass-ceramic and composite resins are common veneering options. This in vitro study aimed to comparatively evaluate the translucency of PEEK when veneered with lithium disilicate glass-ceramic and composite resin. This is crucial for achieving predictable aesthetic outcomes.
methods20 sandblasted PEEK specimens (10mm x 10mm, 0.6mm thick) were divided into two groups (n=10). Group A (lithium disilicate) comprised 0.5mm thick A2 shade lithium disilicate veneers, fabricated via lost wax pressing, which were etched, silanized, and luted to PEEK cores with translucent light-cure resin cement. In Group B (composite resin), PEEK discs received an opaquer, then 0.5mm thick A2 shade composite resin was injected into a mold to form the bi-layered specimen. The translucency parameter (TP) and contrast ratio (CR) of the veneered specimens were assessed using a UV-Vis-NIR spectrophotometer. Data normality was confirmed via the Shapiro-Wilk test. Independent samples t-tests were then performed to evaluate inter-group differences, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsStatistically significant differences were found between the materials regarding translucency and masking ability (p<0.001 for both TP and CR). Lithium disilicate veneered PEEK (Group A) showed a significantly higher mean TP of 11.42±0.55 (95% CI: 11.03-11.82), indicating superior light transmission. In comparison, composite resin (Group B) had a mean TP of 10.42±0.29 (95% CI: 10.21-10.63). Furthermore, lithium disilicate displayed a statistically higher mean CR of 1.360±0.01 (95% CI: 1.35-1.37), suggesting greater masking ability, compared to the composite resin CR of 1.320±0.01 (95% CI: 1.31-1.33).
conclusionLithium disilicate glass-ceramic, as a veneering material for PEEK, offers a statistically significant advantage in both simulating natural enamel's translucency and providing better masking. This makes it a more suitable choice for highly aesthetic PEEK-based restorations in demanding zones.
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.