Professor and Head, Department of Prosthodontics, Government Dental College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India.
Additional Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Government Dental College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India.
J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Dec;128(6):1275-1281. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.02.037. Epub 2021 Apr 28.
Titanium-supported polyetheretherketone (PEEK) abutments provide an economic alternative to zirconia abutments in esthetically important areas. Research comparing the performance regarding esthetics, longevity, and biologic parameters of PEEK abutments is lacking.
The purpose of this clinical study was to determine whether PEEK implant abutments provide similar esthetic and biologic parameters and survival rates as zirconia implant abutments.
Forty participants (age 20 to 50 years) receiving maxillary anterior and premolar implants were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned into 1 of 2 groups: Group PEEK (20 titanium-supported PEEK abutments) and group ZIR (20 zirconia abutments). Both groups were restored with pressed lithium disilicate ceramic crowns. Technical, biologic, and esthetic evaluation was performed at baseline and at 1, 3, and 5 years. The probing pocket depth, plaque control record, and bleeding on probing were recorded at the abutments (test) and compared with those at the corresponding contralateral teeth (control) and also between the 2 test groups. Standardized digital radiographs of the implants were made, and the bone level was recorded with the implant shoulder as the reference on the mesial and distal sides. The color difference between the peri-implant mucosa and control teeth gingiva and the discoloration of the implant crowns were determined with a spectrophotometer. The Student unpaired t test and repeated-measure ANOVA were used to statistically analyze the data (α=.05).
From the 5-year evaluation, both PEEK and zirconia abutments with ceramic crowns showed 100% survival rate without any fracture or restoration loss. Differences in the biologic parameters of zirconia and PEEK abutments were statistically similar: mean probing pocket depth (group ZIR: 2.32 ±0.50 mm, group PEEK: 2.13 ±0.60 mm); mean plaque control record (group ZIR: 0.19 ±0.19, group PEEK: 0.15 ±0.17); and mean bleeding on probing (group ZIR: 0.12 ±0.11, group PEEK: 0.08 ±0.12). The mean marginal bone loss at 5 years was similar for implants supporting zirconia and PEEK abutments: mean mesial bone level (group ZIR: 1.8 ±0.5 mm; group PEEK: 1.9 ±0.6 mm), and mean distal bone level (group ZIR: 1.7 ±0.6 mm, group PEEK: 1.8 ±0.3 mm). The initial color difference (ΔE) between the peri-implant mucosa and gingiva of the analogous contralateral teeth diminished over time. No discoloration of the definitive restoration supported by PEEK or zirconia was detected over 5 years.
At the 5-year evaluation, zirconia and PEEK abutments exhibited the same survival rate with similar biologic and esthetic outcomes.
钛支持的聚醚醚酮（PEEK）基台在美学重要区域为氧化锆基台提供了经济的替代方案。缺乏比较 PEEK 基台在美学、寿命和生物学参数方面性能的研究。
本临床研究的目的是确定 PEEK 种植体基台是否提供与氧化锆种植体基台相似的美学和生物学参数以及存活率。
40 名（20 至 50 岁）接受上颌前牙和前磨牙种植体的参与者被纳入研究，并随机分为 2 组之一：PEEK 组（20 个钛支持 PEEK 基台）和 ZIR 组（20 个氧化锆基台）。两组均用加压锂硅陶瓷冠修复。在基线和 1、3 和 5 年时进行技术、生物学和美学评估。在基台（测试）处记录探诊袋深度、菌斑控制记录和探诊出血，并与相应对侧牙齿（对照）进行比较，同时也在两组测试组之间进行比较。对种植体进行标准数字化射线照相，并以种植体肩部为参考记录近中和远侧的骨水平。使用分光光度计确定种植体周围黏膜与对照牙齿牙龈之间的色差和种植体冠的变色。使用学生未配对 t 检验和重复测量 ANOVA 对数据进行统计学分析（α=.05）。
从 5 年评估来看，带有陶瓷冠的 PEEK 和氧化锆基台均显示出 100%的存活率，没有任何骨折或修复体丢失。氧化锆和 PEEK 基台的生物学参数差异在统计学上相似：平均探诊袋深度（ZIR 组：2.32 ±0.50mm，PEEK 组：2.13 ±0.60mm）；平均菌斑控制记录（ZIR 组：0.19 ±0.19，PEEK 组：0.15 ±0.17）；和平均探诊出血（ZIR 组：0.12 ±0.11，PEEK 组：0.08 ±0.12）。5 年后，支持氧化锆和 PEEK 基台的种植体的平均边缘骨损失相似：近中骨水平的平均值（ZIR 组：1.8 ±0.5mm；PEEK 组：1.9 ±0.6mm），和远中骨水平的平均值（ZIR 组：1.7 ±0.6mm，PEEK 组：1.8 ±0.3mm）。类似对侧牙齿种植体周围黏膜和牙龈的初始色差（ΔE）随时间推移而减小。在 5 年内未发现 PEEK 或氧化锆支持的最终修复体有变色。
在 5 年评估时，氧化锆和 PEEK 基台表现出相同的存活率，具有相似的生物学和美学结果。
