What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to compare clinical results and patient satisfaction between PEEK composite and titanium-zirconia fixed prostheses.

April 23, 2026Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry0 citations

Clinical and Prosthetic Outcomes of Titanium Zirconium Versus PEEK Composite Maxillary Fixed Prostheses Opposing Distal Extension Partial Dentures: Comparative Clinical Study

Ver artículo completo

MAMarwa Ahmed Aboelez RGReem Salah Abdelrasoul Gad ASAhmed Mohammed Saaduddin Sapri

Puntos clave

This research aims to compare clinical results and patient satisfaction between PEEK composite and titanium-zirconia fixed prostheses.
Thirty patients received six implants in the maxillary regions and were divided into two groups for prosthetic material.
Clinical parameters including plaque score, gingival score, and vertical bone loss were measured at baseline and 6 and 12 months.
Patient satisfaction and prosthetic complications were assessed one year post-treatment.
Patients with titanium-zirconia prostheses reported higher plaque scores and vertical bone loss than those with PEEK frameworks.
Both groups had different patient satisfaction levels: PEEK users felt it was easier to clean and chew.
Titanium-zirconia patients experienced more prosthetic complications, including screw loosening and veneers breaking.

Resumen

ABSTRACT Objectives Titanium and zirconia are commonly used materials for implant frameworks. The selection of prosthetic material influences the load‐bearing capacity of fixed dental prostheses and plays a critical role in the longevity of implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (ISFDPs) by affecting stress transmission during the chewing cycle. Purpose To evaluate clinical results, prosthetic results, and patient satisfaction associated with fixed prostheses fabricated from polyetheretherketone and titanium–zirconia, supported by six maxillary implants and opposed by mandibular distal extension removable partial dentures. Materials and Methods Thirty patients with an edentulous maxilla and mandibular distal‐extension ridges received six implants in the maxillary regions of 12, 14, 16, 22, 24, and 26, with lengths of 10–14 mm and diameters of 3.6–4.5 mm. Patients were randomly classified into two equal groups: (G1) PEEK composite frameworks, and (G2) titanium–zirconia frameworks. Plaque score, gingival score, pocket depth, implant mobility, and vertical bone loss (VBL) were assessed at the time of fixed complete‐arch implant prosthesis placement (T0), and at six (T6) and twelve (T12) months after delivery. Patient satisfaction (VAS) and prosthetic complications were evaluated after 1 year. Results G2 showed significantly higher plaque scores, pocket depth, and VBL than G1 at 6 and 12 months. G2 revealed a significantly higher patient satisfaction with maxillary prostheses compared to natural teeth and appearance than G1. Compared to G2, G1 showed noticeably greater patient satisfaction with relation to cleaning and ease of chewing than G2. G2 revealed a significantly higher incidence of prosthetic complications regarding veneer fracture or separation and prosthetic screw loosening than G1. Conclusions PEEK composite and titanium zirconia fixed implant restorations for an edentulous maxilla opposed by distal extension mandibular ridges can be effectively used to rehabilitate patients using the maxillary All‐on‐Six concept. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06111391

Preguntar a la IA

Me gusta

Guardar

Ver artículo completo

Cite This Study

Aboelez et al. (Mon,) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69e9b8d485696592c86ebd3c https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.70166

Preguntar a la IA

Me gusta

Guardar

Ver artículo completo