Bülent Kadir TARTUK, Emrah AYNA, Emine GÖNCÜ BAŞARAN

Monolitik PEEK, Zirkonyum ve Hibrit Seramik Molar Kronların Basma Dayanım Kapasitelerinin Karşılaştırılması

Amaç: Polieter eter ketonun (PEEK) protetik diş hekimliğinde göstermiş olduğu yüksek biyouyumluluğuna karşın, klinik uygulamaları ve sınırları hakkında yeterli bilgi bulunmamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, bilgisayar destekli tasarım ve bilgisayar destekli üretim (CAD/CAM) kullanılarak üretilen PEEK, hibrit seramik ve zirkonyum kronlarının basma dayanım kapasitelerini karşılaştırmaktır.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Yüksek dirençli PEEK polimer, hibrit seramik ve zirkonyum olmak üzere üç grup (n=10) CAD/CAM kullanılarak üretildi. Tüm örneklerin kırılma direncinin değerlendirilmesi için üniversal test makinesi kullanıldı. Örneklere kırılma meydana gelene kadar yükleme yapıldı ve kırılma anındaki yük değerleri kaydedildi. Kırılma direnci verileri Tukey-honest significant difference çoklu karşılaştırma testi ile istatistiksel olarak analiz edildi.Bulgular: Basma dayanım kapasitelerine göre PEEK grubu (2214±236 N) ile hibrit seramik grup (2325±264 N) arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark gözlenmezken (p>0,05), zirkonyum grubu (3292±192 N) kırılma dayanımında en yüksek değerleri gösterdi.Sonuç: Her üç kron materyali de fizyolojik okluzal kuvvete karşı başarılıydı. Bu in vitro çalışmaların sınırları doğrultusunda, PEEK materyali sabit protezler için alternatif bir kron materyali olabilir.

Comparison of the Load-bearing Capacities of Monolithic PEEK, Zirconia and Hybrid Ceramic Molar Crowns

Objective: Although polyether ether ketone (PEEK) shows high biocompatibility in prosthetic dentistry, there is inadequate information about its clinical applications and limits. The purpose of this study was to compare the load-bearing capacities of PEEK, hybrid ceramic and zirconia crowns, which were fabricated using computeraided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM). Materials and Methods: Three groups (n=10) of high-resistance PEEK polymer, hybrid ceramic and zirconia were fabricated using CAD/CAM. A universal test machine was used to assume the fracture resistance of all specimens. The specimens were loaded until final fracture occurred and load at fracture was recorded. Fracture resistance data were statistically analyzed by Tukey honest significant difference multiple comparison test. Results: There was no significant statistical difference between PEEK group (2214±236 N) and hybrid ceramic group (2325±264 N) in relation to the loadbearing capacities (p>0.05), while zirconia group (3292±192 N) showed the highest values for fracture load. Conclusion: All three crown materials were successful against physiological occlusal forces. Regarding the limitations of this in vitro study, PEEK could be an alternative crown material for fixed dental prostheses.

PDF

___

1. Raigrodski AJ. Contemporary all-ceramic fixed partial dentures: a review. Dent Clin North Am 2004; 48: 531-44.
2. Norling BK, Reisbick MH. The effect of nonionic surfactants on bubble entrapment in elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1979; 42: 342-7.
3. Claus H. The structure and microstructure of dental porcelain in relationship to the firing conditions. Int J Prosthodont 1989; 2: 376-84.
4. Alberto A, Pascual A, Camps I, Grau-Benitez M. Comparative characterization of a novel cad-cam polymer-infiltrated-ceramicnetwork. J Clin Exp Dent 2015; 7: 495-500.
5. Thompson VP, Rekow DE. Dental ceramics and the molar crown testing ground. J Appl Oral Sci 2004; 12: 26-36.
6. Mehl C, Ludwig K, Steiner M, Kern M. Fracture strength of prefabricated all-ceramic posterior inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses. Dent Mater 2010; 26: 67-75.
7. Chevalier J. What future for zirconia as a biomaterial? 2016; 27: 535-43.
8. De Kok P, Kleverlaan CJ, De Jager N, Kuijs R, Feilzer AJ. Mechanical performance of implant-supported posterior crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 114: 59-66.
9. Chevalier J, Loh J, Gremillard L, Meille S, Adolfson E. Lowtemperature degradation in zirconia with a porous surface. Acta Biomater 2011; 7: 2986-93.
10. Lameira DP, Buarque e Silva WA, Andrade e Silva F, De Souza GM. Fracture Strength of Aged Monolithic and Bilayer Zirconia-Based Crowns. Biomed Res 2015; 2015: 418641.
11. Beschnidt SM, Strub JR. Evaluation of the marginal accuracy of different all‐ceramic crown systems after simulation in the artificial mouth. J Oral Rehabil 1999; 26: 582-93.
12. Kiliaridis S, Kjellberg H, Wenneberg B, Engström C. The relationship between maximal bite force, bite force endurance, and facial morphology during growth: A cross-sectional study. Acta Odontol Scand 1993; 51: 323-31.
13. Pröbster L, Geıs‐Gerstorfer J, Kirchner E, Kanjantra P. In vitro evaluation of a glass–ceramic restorative material. J Oral Rehabil 1997; 24: 636-45.
14. Dirxen C, Blunck U, Preissner S. Clinical performance of a new biomimetic double network material. Open Dent J 2013; 7: 118- 22.
15. Spitznagel FA, Horvath SD, Guess PC, Blatz MB. Resin bond to indirect composite and new ceramic/polymer materials: a review of the literature. J Esthet Restor Dent 2014; 26: 382-93.
16. Kurtz SM, Devine JN. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials 2007; 28: 4845-69.
17. Sandler J, Windle AH, Werner P, Altstadt V, Shaffer MS. Carbonnanofibre-reinforced poly (ether ether ketone) fibres. J Mater Sci 2003; 38: 2135-41.
18. Najeeb S, Zafar MS, Khurshid Z, Siddiqui F. Applications of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in oral implantology and prosthodontics. J Prosthodont Res 2016; 60: 12-9.
19. Toth JM, Wang M, Estes BT, Scifert JL, Seim HB, Turner AS. Polyetheretherketone as a biomaterial for spinal applications. Biomaterials 2006; 27: 324-34.
20. Stawarczyk B, Beuer F, Wimmer T, Jahn D, Sener B, Ross M, et al. Polyetheretherketone—a suitable material for fixed dental prostheses?. J Bıomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2013; 101: 1209-16.
21. Taufall S, Eichberger M, Schmidlin PR, Stawarczyk B. Fracture load and failure types of different veneered polyetheretherketone fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20: 2493-500.
22. Stawarczyk B, Eichberger M, Uhrenbacher J, Wimmer T, Edelhoff D, Schmidlin PR. Three-unit reinforced polyetheretherketone composite FDPs: Influence of fabrication method on loadbearing capacity and failure types. Dent Mater J 2015; 34: 7-12.
23. Rees J, Jacobsen P. The elastic moduli of enamel and dentine. Clin Mater 1993; 14: 35-9.
24. Hallmann L, Mehl A, Sereno N, Hammerle CH. The improvement of adhesive properties of PEEK through pre-treatments. Appl Surf Sci 2012; 258: 7213-8.
25. Noiset O, Schneider YJ, Marchand-Brynaert J. Adhesion and growth of CaCo2 cells on surface-modified PEEK substrata. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 2000; 11: 767-86.
26. Kern M, Lehmann F. Influence of surface conditioning on bonding to polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Dent Mater 2012; 28: 1280-3.
27. Parmigiani-Izquierdo JM, Cabaña-Muñoz ME, Merino JJ, Sánchez-Pérez A. Zirconia implants and peek restorations for the replacement of upper molars. Int J Implant Dent 2017; 3: 5.
28. Schwitalla AD, Abou-Emara M, Spintig T, Lackmann J, Muller WD. Finite element analysis of the biomechanical effects of PEEK dental implants on the peri-implant bone. J Biomech 2015; 48: 1-7.
29. Potiket N, Chiche G, Finger IM. In vitro fracture strength of teeth restored with different all-ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 92: 491-5.
30. Scherrer SS, de Rijk WG. The fracture resistance of allceramic crowns on supporting structures with different elastic moduli. Int J Prosthodont 1993; 6: 4627.