Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(01): 115-121
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1731833
Original Article

Mechanical Response of PEKK and PEEK As Frameworks for Implant-Supported Full-Arch Fixed Dental Prosthesis: 3D Finite Element Analysis

Regina Furbino Villefort
1   Federal University of Espírito Santo, Rede Nordeste de Biotecnologia, Vitória, Espírito Santo, Brazil
,
Pedro Jacy Santos Diamantino
2   Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University, São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Sandra Lúcia Ventorin von Zeidler
1   Federal University of Espírito Santo, Rede Nordeste de Biotecnologia, Vitória, Espírito Santo, Brazil
,
Alexandre Luiz Souto Borges
2   Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University, São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Laís Regiane Silva-Concílio
3   Department of Dentistry, University of Taubaté, Taubaté, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Guilherme deSiqueira Ferreira Anzaloni Saavedra
2   Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University, São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil
,
João Paulo Mendes Tribst
3   Department of Dentistry, University of Taubaté, Taubaté, São Paulo, Brazil
› Author Affiliations Funding This article was supported by FAPES/CAPES grant number: FAPES/CAPES N˚ 10/2018 – PROFIX 2018; process number: 83574662 (to R.F.V.).
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Polymeric framework represent an innovative approach for implant-supported dental prostheses. However, the mechanical response of ultra-high performance polymers as frameworks for full-arch prostheses under the “all-on-four concept” remains unclear. The present study applied finite element analysis to examine the behavior of polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) prosthetic frameworks.

Materials and Methods A three-dimensional maxillary model received four axially positioned morse-taper implants, over which a polymeric bar was simulated. The full-arch prosthesis was created from a previously reported database model, and the imported geometries were divided into a mesh composed of nodes and tetrahedral elements in the analysis software. The materials were assumed as isotropic, elastic, and homogeneous, and all contacts were considered bonded. A normal load (500 N magnitude) was applied at the occlusal surface of the first left molar after the model was fixed at the base of the cortical bone. The microstrain and von-Mises stress were selected as criteria for analysis.

Results Similarities in the mechanical response were observed in both framework for the peri-implant tissue, as well as for stress generated in the implants (263–264 MPa) and abutments (274–273 MPa). The prosthetic screw and prosthetic base concentrated more stress with PEEK (211 and 58 MPa, respectively) than with PEKK (192 and 49 MPa), while the prosthetic framework showed the opposite behavior (59 MPa for PEEK and 67 MPa for PEKK).

Conclusion The main differences related to the mechanical behavior of PEKK and PEEK frameworks for full-arch prostheses under the “all-on-four concept” were reflected in the prosthetic screw and the acrylic base. The superior shock absorbance of PEKK resulted in a lower stress concentration on the prosthetic screw and prosthetic base. This would clinically represent a lower fracture risk on the acrylic base and screw loosening. Conversely, lower stress concentration was observed on PEEK frameworks.

Keywords

dental implants - finite element analysis - polymers - prosthodontics


Publication History

Article published online:
24 September 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Arcila L, de Carvalho Ramos N, Bottino M, Tribst JPM. Indications, materials and properties of 3D printing in dentistry: a literature overview. Res Soc Dev 2020; 9 (11) e80791110632
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Revilla-León M, Sadeghpour M, Özcan M. An update on applications of 3D printing technologies used for processing polymers used in implant dentistry. Odontology 2020; 108 (03) 331-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kessler A, Hickel R, Reymus M. 3D printing in dentistry-state of the art. Oper Dent 2020; 45 (01) 30-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bae SY, Park JY, Jeong ID, Kim HY, Kim JH, Kim WC. Three-dimensional analysis of marginal and internal fit of copings fabricated with polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) and zirconia. J Prosthodont Res 2017; 61 (02) 106-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Alsadon O, Wood D, Patrick D, Pollington S. Fatigue behavior and damage modes of high performance poly-ether-ketone-ketone PEKK bilayered crowns. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2020; 110: 103957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rauch A, Hahnel S, Günther E, Bidmon W, Schierz O. Materials tooth-colored CAD / CAM materials for application an illustrated clinical comparison. Materials (Basel) 2020; 13 (24) 5588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Amelya A, Kim JE, Woo CW, Otgonbold J, Lee KW. Load-bearing capacity of posterior CAD/CAM implant-supported fixed partial dentures fabricated with different esthetic materials. Int J Prosthodont 2019; 32 (02) 201-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Daou EE. The zirconia ceramic: strengths and weaknesses. Open Dent J 2014; 8 (01) 33-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 da Cunha Vasconcelos G, Mazur RL, Botelho EC, Rezende MC, Costa ML. Evaluation of crystallization kinetics of poly (ether-ketone- ketone) and poly (ether-ether- ketone) by DSC. J Aerosp Technol Manag 2010; 2 (02) 155-162
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Benedetti L, Brulé B, Decreamer N, Evans KE, Ghita O. Shrinkage behaviour of semi-crystalline polymers in laser sintering: PEKK and PA12. Mater Des 2019 181
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Maló P, Rangert B, Nobre M. “All-on-Four” immediate-function concept with Brånemark System implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003; 5 (Suppl. 01) 2-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Durkan R, Oyar P, Deste G. Maxillary and mandibular all-on-four implant designs: a review. Niger J Clin Pract 2019; 22 (08) 1033-1040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dawson JH, Hyde B, Hurst M, Harris BT, Lin WS. Polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), a framework material for complete fixed and removable dental prostheses: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119 (06) 867-872
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Moura Guedes C. et al. Short-term report of an ongoing prospective cohort study evaluating the outcome of full-arch implant-supported fixed hybrid polyetheretherketone-acrylic resin prostheses and the All-on-Four concept. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018; 20 (05) 692-702
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Zhao Y, Wong HM, Wang W. et al. Cytocompatibility, osseointegration, and bioactivity of three-dimensional porous and nanostructured network on polyetheretherketone. Biomaterials 2013; 34 (37) 9264-9277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hu X, Mei S, Wang F. et al. Implantable PEKK/tantalum microparticles composite with improved surface performances for regulating cell behaviors, promoting bone formation and osseointegration. Bioact Mater 2020; 6 (04) 928-940
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Zeller B, Stöckli S, Zaugg LK. et al. Biofilm formation on metal alloys, zirconia and polyetherketoneketone as implant materials in vivo. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020; 31 (11) 1078-1086
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Villefort RF, Tribst JPM, Dal Piva AMO. et al. Stress distribution on different bar materials in implant-retained palatal obturator. PLoS One 2020; 15 (10) e0241589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bhering CLB, Mesquita MF, Kemmoku DT, Noritomi PY, Consani RLX, Barão VAR. Comparison between all-on-four and all-on-six treatment concepts and framework material on stress distribution in atrophic maxilla: a prototyping guided 3D-FEA study. Mater Sci Eng C 2016; 69 (69) 715-725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Tribst JPM, Dal AMO Piva, Borges ALS, Rodrigues VA, Bottino MAKC, Kleverlaan CJ. Does the prosthesis weight matter? 3D finite element analysis of a fixed implant-supported prosthesis at different weights and implant numbers. J Adv Prosthodont 2020; 12 (02) 67-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kemmoku DT, Laureti CAR, Noritomi PYSJ. BioCAD techniques: Example on maxilla for rapid expansion simulation. Innovative Developments in Virtual and Physical Prototyping Y. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Advanced Research and Rapid Prototyping. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/Innovative-Developments-in-Virtual-and-Physical-Prototyping-Proceedings/Bartolo/p/book/9780415684187. Accessed 2012
  • 22 Paes-Junior TA, Tribst JP, Dal Piva AO, Amaral M, Borges AL, Gonçalves FD. Stress distribution of complete-arch implant-supported prostheses reinforced with silica-nylon mesh. J Clin Exp Dent 2019; 11 (12) e1163-e1169
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Monteiro JB, Dal AMO Piva, Tribst JPM, Borges ALS, Tango RN. The effect of resection angle on stress distribution after root-end surgery. Iran Endod J 2018; 13 (02) 188-194
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Moroi HH, Okimoto K, Moroi R, Terada Y. Numeric approach to the biomechanical analysis of thermal effects in coated implants. Int J Prosthodont 1993; 6 (06) 564-572
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Vadapalli S, Sairyo K, Goel VK. et al. Biomechanical rationale for using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) spacers for lumbar interbody fusion-A finite element study. Spine 2006; 31 (26) E992-E998
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lee KS, Shin SW, Lee SP, Kim JE, Kim JH, Lee JY. Comparative evaluation of a four-implant-supported polyetherketoneketone framework prosthesis: a three-dimensional finite element analysis based on cone beam computed tomography and computer-aided design. Int J Prosthodont 2017; 30 (06) 581-585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Peyton FACR. Current evaluation of plastics in crown and bridge prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1963; 13: 745-753
    Google Scholar
  • 28 McCormack SW, Witzel U, Watson PJ, Fagan MJ, Gröning F. Inclusion of periodontal ligament fibres in mandibular finite element models leads to an increase in alveolar bone strains. PLoS One 2017; 12 (11) e0188707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tribst JPM, Dal Piva AMO, Lo Giudice R. et al. The influence of custom-milled framework design for an implant-supported full-arch fixed dental prosthesis: 3D-FEA Sudy. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17 (11) E4040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Frost HMA. A 2003 update of bone physiology and Wolff’s Law for clinicians. Angle Orthod 2004; 74 (01) 3-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Xu J, Huang X, Davim J, Ji M, Chen M. On the machining behavior of carbon fiber reinforced polyimide and PEEK thermoplastic composites. Polym Compos 2020; 41 (09) 3649-3663
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ferreira MB, Barão VA, Faverani LP, Hipólito AC, Assunção WG. The role of superstructure material on the stress distribution in mandibular full-arch implant-supported fixed dentures. A CT-based 3D-FEA. Mater Sci Eng C 2014; 35 (01) 92-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Dieguez-Pereira M, Brizuela-Velasco A, Chavarri-Prado D, Perez-Pevida E, deLlanos-Lanchares H, Alvarez-Arenal A. The utility of implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis material for implant micromovement and peri-implant bone microstrain: a study in rabbit tibia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020; 35 (06) 1132-1140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Erkmen E, Meriç G, Kurt A, Tunç Y, Eser A. Biomechanical comparison of implant retained fixed partial dentures with fiber reinforced composite versus conventional metal frameworks: a 3D FEA study. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2011; 4 (01) 107-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lee KS, Shin MS, Lee JY, Ryu JJ, Shin SW. Shear bond strength of composite resin to high performance polymer PEKK according to surface treatments and bonding materials. J Adv Prosthodont 2017; 9 (05) 350-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Gherlone EF, Sannino G, Rapanelli A, Crespi R, Gastaldi G, Capparé P. Prefabricated bar system for immediate loading in edentulous patients: a 5-year follow-up prospective longitudinal study. BioMed Res Int 2018; 2018: 7352125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Machado RCM, Thomé G, Bernardes SR, Melo ACM. Morse taper implant macrodesign, loading protocol and site of installation – retrospective study of 5,601 implants. Rev Odontol UNESP 2019; 48: 1-9
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Wu AYJ, Hsu JT, Fuh LJ, Huang HL. Biomechanical effect of implant design on four implants supporting mandibular full-arch fixed dentures: in vitro test and finite element analysis. J Formos Med Assoc 2020; 119 (10) 1514-1523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Tretto PHW, Dos MBF Santos, Spazzin AO, Pereira GKR, Bacchi A. Assessment of stress/strain in dental implants and abutments of alternative materials compared to conventional titanium alloy-3D non-linear finite element analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2020; 23 (08) 372-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Soto-Peñaloza D, Zaragozí-Alonso R, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Diago M. The all-on-four treatment concept: systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent 2017; 9 (03) e474-e488
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Patzelt SB, Bahat O, Reynolds MA, Strub JR. The all-on-four treatment concept: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014; 16 (06) 836-855
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Rodrigues VA, Dal AO Piva, Yamaguchi CA, Borges ALS, Mukai MK, Tribst JPM. Effect of framework type on survival probability of implant-supported temporary crowns: an in vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent 2020; 12 (05) e433-e439
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Ayna M, Karayürek F, Jepsen S. et al. Six-year clinical outcomes of implant-supported acrylic vs. ceramic superstructures according to the all-on-4 treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla. Odontology 2021; 109 (04) 930-940
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 El-Anwar MI, El-Zawahry MM, Ibraheem EM, Nassani MZ, ElGabry H. New dental implant selection criterion based on implant design. Eur J Dent 2017; 11 (02) 186-191
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Cervino G, Cicciù M, Fedi S, Milone D, Fiorillo L. FEM analysis applied to OT bridge abutment with seeger retention system. Eur J Dent 2021; 15 (01) 47-53
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Hussein MO, Alruthea MS. Evaluation of bone-implant interface stress and strain using heterogeneous mandibular bone properties based on different empirical correlations. Eur J Dent 2021; 15 (03) 454-462
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar