ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2026
Comparative evaluation of compressive strength of CAD-CAM polyetheretherketone and indirect composite Class II inlays: an in vitro study.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is a high-performance thermoplastic polymer that is currently being utilized in the dental field due to its desirable mechanical characteristics, biocompatibility, and ease of integration into digital CAD-CAM processes. Despite the esthetic and esthetic benefits of composite resins in Class II inlays, mechanical performance in high-stress posterior restorations continues to be a clinical issue with the material. Although other research has been conducted to utilize PEEK in different dental treatment procedures, there are no direct comparative studies dealing specifically with the compressive strength of Class II dental restorations using CAD-CAM developed PEEK inlays as compared to indirect composite inlays. This study aimed to compare the compressive strength of PEEK and composite resin when used as Class II inlays and evaluate PEEK's suitability as an alternative restorative material. Thirty-four human premolars extracted for orthodontic reasons and randomly allocated to two groups (n = 17). Group A was provided with CAD-CAM-produced PEEK inlays, and Group B was restored with inlays made of an indirect composite. Fracture load testing of all specimens was done through a universal testing machine. An independent t -test was used to statistically analyze the compressive strength values. The PEEK group showed a mean compressive strength value of 381.88 N compared to 266.67 N in the composite group, and the p-value was below 0.001, which was a statistically significant difference. PEEK inlays proved to have better compressive strength than composite resin inlays, which implies that PEEK is a prospective Class II restorative material in stress-bearing posterior areas. Its clinical performance over the long term and in more applications should be the subject of future research.
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.