Polyetheretherketone (PEEK), a thermoplastic polymer from the polyaryletherketone (PAEK) family, is increasingly used in dental biomedical applications because of its bioinert properties. This comprehensive review examines PEEK's suitability as a dental implant fixture and other related prostheses, focusing on its mechanical stability, chemical resistance, and compatibility with human bone. PEEK's ability to distribute and transmit occlusal forces to surrounding bone, along with its aesthetic advantages, make it a promising implant material that outperforms titanium and zirconia. PEEK has been successfully employed in various dental implantology applications, including implant fixtures, abutments, scan bodies, abutment screws, and implant-supported superstructures such as frameworks, crowns, and bridges, as well as overdenture attachment components. As a dental implant fixture, PEEK has undergone several modifications to enhance its surface, mechanical, and biological properties. PEEK exhibits comparable mechanical strength to other materials but offers advantages such as reduced production times and costs, improved toughness, and recyclability. Its non-interference with MRI and CBCT enhances diagnostic capabilities, while bioactive substances like hydroxyapatite further enhance its dental applications. Several manufacturing methods are available, each with specific advantages and limitations. Computer Numerical Control (CNC) milling is commonly used in dental labs but leads to material waste and tool wear challenges. Advances in micro-milling and cutting tool technology enable finer detail in PEEK parts. Additionally, 3-D printing is emerging as a promising technology for more precise and efficient dental part production. This review aims to update the current knowledge about PEEK applications, modifications, and manufacturing in the field of dental implantology. Moreover, it explores the challenges and suggests future research directions for optimising PEEK's bioactivity and stress distribution.
KlingeBLundströmMRosénM, et al.Dental Implant Quality Register—A possible tool to further improve implant treatment and outcome. Clin Oral Implants Res2018; 29: 145–151.
2.
SumnerD. Long-term implant fixation and stress-shielding in total hip replacement. J Biomech2015; 48: 797–800.
3.
ZhengLYangJHuX, et al.Three dimensional finite element analysis of a novel osteointegrated dental implant designed to reduce stress peak of cortical bone. Acta Bioeng Biomech2014; 16: 21–28.
4.
de Araújo NobreMMoura GuedesCAlmeidaR, et al.Poly-ether-ether-ketone and implant dentistry: the future of mimicking natural dentition is now!Polym Int2021; 70: 999–1001.
5.
MaZZhaoXZhaoJ, et al.Biologically modified polyether ether ketone as dental implant material. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2020; 8: 620537.
6.
PreisVHahnelSBehrM, et al.In-vitro fatigue and fracture testing of CAD/CAM-materials in implant-supported molar crowns. Dent Mater2017; 33: 427–433.
7.
TaufallSEichbergerMSchmidlinPR, et al.Fracture load and failure types of different veneered polyetheretherketone fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Investig2016; 20: 2493–2500.
8.
StawarczykBEichbergerMUhrenbacherJ, et al.Three-unit reinforced polyetheretherketone composite FDPs: influence of fabrication method on load-bearing capacity and failure types. Dent Mater J2015; 34: 7–12.
9.
MatsumotoTFujitaKFujiokaH, et al.Stress fracture of the first rib in a soccer player: a rare etiology of shoulder pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2003; 12: 197–199.
10.
HelmyM-DAlqutaibiAEl-EllaA, et al.Effect of implant loading protocols on failure and marginal bone loss with unsplinted two-implant-supported mandibular overdentures: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2018; 47: 642–650.
11.
AlqutaibiAY. Cement-and screw-retained implant-supported restorations showed comparable marginal bone loss and implant survival rate. J Evidence Based Dent Pract2017; 17: 107–109.
12.
LeeWTKoakJYLimYJ, et al.Stress shielding and fatigue limits of poly-ether-ether-ketone dental implants. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater2012; 100: 1044–1052.
13.
SearleOPfeifferR. Victrex® poly (ethersulfone)(PES) and Victrex® poly (etheretherketone)(PEEK). Polym Eng Sci1985; 25: 474–476.
14.
Di BoonYJoshiSCBhudoliaSK. Filament winding and automated fiber placement with in situ consolidation for fiber reinforced thermoplastic polymer composites. Polymers (Basel)2021; 13: 1951.
15.
ChenDLiJYuanY, et al.A review of the polymer for cryogenic application: methods, mechanisms and perspectives. Polymers (Basel)2021; 13: 320.
16.
TothJMWangMEstesBT, et al.Polyetheretherketone as a biomaterial for spinal applications. Biomaterials2006; 27: 324–334.
17.
AlqurashiHKhurshidZSyedAUY, et al.Polyetherketoneketone (PEKK): an emerging biomaterial for oral implants and dental prostheses. J Adv Res2021; 28: 87–95.
18.
MoellerMMatyjaszewskiK. Polymer science: a comprehensive reference. 2012: Newnes.
19.
Díez-PascualAMNaffakhMMarcoC, et al.High-performance nanocomposites based on polyetherketones. Prog Mater Sci2012; 57: 1106–1190.
20.
KurtzSMDevineJN. PEEK Biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials2007; 28: 4845–4869.
21.
NajeebSZafarMSKhurshidZ, et al.Applications of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in oral implantology and prosthodontics. J Prosthodont Res2016; 60: 12–19.
22.
KrejciIMuellerELutzF. Effects of thermocycling and occlusal force on adhesive composite crowns. J Dent Res1994; 73: 1228–1232.
23.
HenchLLWilsonJ. An introduction to bioceramics. Vol. 1. Singapore, New Jersey, London, Hong Kong: World scientific, 1993.
24.
WangMLadizeskyNTannerK, et al.Hydrostatically extruded HAPEX™. J Mater Sci2000; 35: 1023–1030.
25.
RiceJCowinSBowmanJ. On the dependence of the elasticity and strength of cancellous bone on apparent density. J Biomech1988; 21: 155–168.
26.
KimH-JKwonT-YKimK-H, et al.Long-term release of chlorhexidine from dental adhesive resin system using human serum albumin nanoparticles. Polym Bull2014; 71: 875–886.
27.
WypychG. Handbook of polymers. Toronto, ON: ChemTec Publishing, 2022.
28.
ShibataMYosomiyaRWangJ, et al.Relationship between molecular structure and thermal properties of poly (aryl ether ketone) s. Macromol Rapid Commun1997; 18: 99–105.
29.
YakufuMWangZWangY, et al.Covalently functionalized poly (etheretherketone) implants with osteogenic growth peptide (OGP) to improve osteogenesis activity. RSC Adv2020; 10: 9777–9785.
30.
BenliMEker GümüşBKahramanY, et al.Surface characterization and bonding properties of milled polyetheretherketone dental posts. Odontology2020; 108: 596–606.
31.
ChenXMaRMinJ, et al.Effect of PEEK and PTFE coatings in fatigue performance of dental implant retaining screw joint: an in vitro study. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2020; 103: 103530.
32.
KornPElschnerCSchulzM, et al.MRI And dental implantology: two which do not exclude each other. Biomaterials2015; 53: 634–645.
33.
KöseTEGünaçarDNAteşSM, et al.Artifact expression of polyetheretherketone in cone beam computed tomography: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent2021; 126: e1–793. e5.
34.
SirajNHashmiSARVermaS. State-of-the-art review on the high-performance poly (ether ether ketone) composites for mechanical, tribological and bioactive characteristics. Polym Adv Technol2022; 33: 3049–3077.
35.
ZhaoMAnMWangQ, et al.Quantitative proteomic analysis of human osteoblast-like MG-63 cells in response to bioinert implant material titanium and polyetheretherketone. J Proteomics2012; 75: 3560–3573.
36.
SteenbergheDvQuirynenMNaertI, et al.Marginal bone loss around implants retaining hinging mandibular overdentures, at 4-, 8-and 12-years follow-up. J Clin Periodontol2001; 28: 628–633.
37.
ChenQZhuCThouasGA. Progress and challenges in biomaterials used for bone tissue engineering: bioactive glasses and elastomeric composites. Prog Biomater2012; 1: 1–22.
38.
PapathanasiouIKamposioraPPapavasiliouG, et al.The use of PEEK in digital prosthodontics: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health2020; 20: 1–11.
39.
MeningaudJSpahnFDonsimoniJ. After titanium, peek?Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac2012; 113: 407–410.
40.
NeumannEAFVillarCCFrançaFMG. Fracture resistance of abutment screws made of titanium, polyetheretherketone, and carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone. Braz Oral Res2014; 28: 1–5.
41.
WangXPanLZhengA, et al.Multifunctionalized carbon-fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone implant for rapid osseointegration under infected environment. Bioact Mater2023; 24: 236–250.
42.
AlOtaibiNNaudiKConwayD, et al.The current state of peek implant osseointergration and future perspectives: a systematic review. Eur Cells Mater2020; 40: 1–20.
43.
Bins-ElyLSuzukiDMaginiR, et al.Enhancing the bone healing on electrical stimuli through the dental implant. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2020; 23: 1041–1051.
44.
ShashYHEl-WakadMTEldosokyMA, et al.Evaluation of stress and strain on mandible caused using “All-on-Four” system from PEEK in hybrid prosthesis: finite-element analysis. Odontology2023; 111: 618–629.
45.
AlqutaibiAYALLAMHAlmuzainiSA. Immediate implant placement with a simultaneous bone augmentation of the gap-filling sites can potentially decrease bone loss compared with augmented sites exhibiting gaps with bony defects. J Evidence-Based Dent Pract2023; 24: 101959.
46.
Al-MortadiNBatainehKAlbakriI. A three–dimensional finite element analysis of polyetheretherketone PEEK in dental implant prosthesis: A novel implant system. Open Dent J2022; 16: e187421062203040.
47.
SarotJRContarCMMCruzACCd, et al.Evaluation of the stress distribution in CFR-PEEK dental implants by the three-dimensional finite element method. J Mater Sci: Mater Med2010; 21: 2079–2085.
48.
ShashYHDohiemMMElwakadMT, et al.Effect of bar material on the biomechanical performance of hybrid dental prosthesis. In: 2021 3rd Novel Intelligent and Leading Emerging Sciences Conference (NILES), 2021. IEEE.
49.
LijnevAElangoJGómez-LópezVM, et al.Antibacterial and proliferative effects of NaOH-coated Titanium, zirconia, and ceramic-reinforced PEEK dental composites on bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Pharmaceutics2022; 15: 98.
SuskaFOmarOEmanuelssonL, et al.Enhancement of CRF-PEEK osseointegration by plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite: a rabbit model. J Biomater Appl2014; 29: 234–242.
52.
WheelerSL. Eight-year clinical retrospective study of titanium plasma-sprayed and hydroxyapatite-coated cylinder implants. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Implants1996; 11: 340–350.
53.
HaS-WMayerJKochB, et al.Plasma-sprayed hydroxylapatite coating on carbon fibre reinforced thermoplastic composite materials. J Mater Sci: Mater Med1994; 5: 481–484.
54.
Waser-AlthausJSalamonAWaserM, et al.Differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells on plasma-treated polyetheretherketone. J Mater Sci: Mater Med2014; 25: 515–525.
55.
ChanC-MKoT-MHiraokaH. Polymer surface modification by plasmas and photons. Surf Sci Rep1996; 24: 1–54.
56.
PoulssonAHEglinDZeiterS, et al.Osseointegration of machined, injection moulded and oxygen plasma modified PEEK implants in a sheep model. Biomaterials2014; 35: 3717–3728.
57.
HanXSharmaNSpintzykS, et al.Tailoring the biologic responses of 3D printed PEEK medical implants by plasma functionalization. Dent Mater2022; 38: 1083–1098.
58.
LiuCLinJTangL, et al.Design of metal-polymer structure for dental implants with stiffness adaptable to alveolar bone. Compos Commun2021; 24: 100660.
59.
BlattSPabstAMSchiegnitzE, et al.Early cell response of osteogenic cells on differently modified implant surfaces: sequences of cell proliferation, adherence and differentiation. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg2018; 46: 453–460.
60.
BubikaSPayerbMArnetzlcG, et al.Attachment and growth of human osteoblasts on different biomaterial surfaces Attachment und Wachstum humaner Osteoblasten auf unterschiedlichen Biomaterialoberflächen. Int J Comput Dent2017; 20: 229–243.
61.
LuTWenJQianS, et al.Enhanced osteointegration on tantalum-implanted polyetheretherketone surface with bone-like elastic modulus. Biomaterials2015; 51: 173–183.
62.
ChenMOuyangLLuT, et al.Enhanced bioactivity and bacteriostasis of surface fluorinated polyetheretherketone. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces2017; 9: 16824–16833.
63.
GheisarifarMThompsonGADragoC, et al.In vitro study of surface alterations to polyetheretherketone and titanium and their effect upon human gingival fibroblasts. J Prosthet Dent2021; 125: 155–164.
64.
OuyangLChenMWangD, et al.Nano textured PEEK surface for enhanced osseointegration. ACS Biomater Sci Eng2019; 5: 1279–1289.
65.
AdityaTMesa-RestrepoACivantosA, et al.Ion bombardment-induced nanoarchitectonics on polyetheretherketone surfaces for enhanced nanoporous bioactive implants. ACS Appl Bio Mater2023; 6: 4922–4934.
66.
KhouryJMaxwellMCherianRE, et al.Enhanced bioactivity and osseointegration of PEEK with accelerated neutral atom beam technology. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater2017; 105: 531–543.
67.
KhouryJSeleznevaIPestovS, et al.Surface bioactivation of PEEK by neutral atom beam technology. Bioact Mater2019; 4: 132–141.
68.
AjamiSCoathupMKhouryJ, et al.Augmenting the bioactivity of polyetheretherketone using a novel accelerated neutral atom beam technique. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater2017; 105: 1438–1446.
69.
TorstrickFBLinASPotterD, et al.Porous PEEK improves the bone-implant interface compared to plasma-sprayed titanium coating on PEEK. Biomaterials2018; 185: 106–116.
70.
ZhaoYWongHMWangW, et al.Cytocompatibility, osseointegration, and bioactivity of three-dimensional porous and nanostructured network on polyetheretherketone. Biomaterials2013; 34: 9264–9277.
71.
SchwitallaADSpintigTKallageI, et al.Pressure behavior of different PEEK materials for dental implants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2016; 54: 295–304.
72.
TsouH-KChiM-HHungY-W, et al.In vivo osseointegration performance of titanium dioxide coating modified polyetheretherketone using arc ion plating for spinal implant application. BioMed Res Int2015; 2015: 328943.
73.
DengYZhouPLiuX, et al.Preparation, characterization, cellular response and in vivo osseointegration of polyetheretherketone/nano-hydroxyapatite/carbon fiber ternary biocomposite. Colloids Surf B2015; 136: 64–73.
74.
XuALiuXGaoX, et al.Enhancement of osteogenesis on micro/nano-topographical carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone–nanohydroxyapatite biocomposite. Mater Sci Eng: C2015; 48: 592–598.
75.
DengYLiuXXuA, et al.Effect of surface roughness on osteogenesis in vitro and osseointegration in vivo of carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone–nanohydroxyapatite composite. Int J Nanomed2015; 10: 1425–1447.
76.
WangLZhangHDengY, et al.Study of oral microbial adhesion and biofilm formation on the surface of nano-fluorohydroxyapatite/polyetheretherketone composite. Zhonghua kou Qiang yi xue za zhi= Zhonghua Kouqiang Yixue Zazhi= Chin J Stomatology2015; 50: 378–382.
77.
WangLHeSWuX, et al.Polyetheretherketone/nano-fluorohydroxyapatite composite with antimicrobial activity and osseointegration properties. Biomaterials2014; 35: 6758–6775.
78.
MonteroJFBarbosaLCPereiraUA, et al.Chemical, microscopic, and microbiological analysis of a functionalized poly-ether-ether-ketone-embedding antibiofilm compounds. J Biomed Mater Res A2016; 104: 3015–3020.
79.
MonteroJFTajiriHABarraGM, et al.Biofilm behavior on sulfonated poly (ether-ether-ketone)(sPEEK). Mater Sci Eng: C2017; 70: 456–460.
80.
OuyangLZhaoYJinG, et al.Influence of sulfur content on bone formation and antibacterial ability of sulfonated PEEK. Biomaterials2016; 83: 115–126.
81.
YangY-JTsouH-KChenY-H, et al.Enhancement of bioactivity on medical polymer surface using high power impulse magnetron sputtered titanium dioxide film. Mater Sci Eng: C2015; 57: 58–66.
82.
KumarTAJeiJBMuthukumarB. Comparison of osteogenic potential of poly-ether-ether-ketone with titanium-coated poly-ether-ether-ketone and titanium-blended poly-ether-ether-ketone: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodontic Soc2017; 17: 167.
83.
WuXLiuXWeiJ, et al.Nano-TiO2/PEEK bioactive composite as a bone substitute material: in vitro and in vivo studies. Int J Nanomed2012; 7: 1215–1225.
84.
ZhangJCaiLWangT, et al.Lithium doped silica nanospheres/poly (dopamine) composite coating on polyetheretherketone to stimulate cell responses, improve bone formation and osseointegration. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med2018; 14: 965–976.
85.
RenYSikderPLinB, et al.Microwave assisted coating of bioactive amorphous magnesium phosphate (AMP) on polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Mater Sci Eng: C2018; 85: 107–113.
86.
Al-NoamanARawlinsonSC. Polyether ether ketone coated with nanohydroxyapatite/graphene oxide composite promotes bioactivity and antibacterial activity at the surface of the material. Eur J Oral Sci2023; 131: e12946.
87.
BaligidadSMAbdullahSRajendranDK, et al.Investigation on fatigue life of HAp and rGO hybrid coating on the PEEK artificial screws for dental implant. Mater Chem Phys2023; 309: 128381.
88.
ZhengYZhouHLiM, et al.Polyetheretherketone surface engineered with a degradable hybrid coating for accelerating osteogenesis. Mater Lett2023; 331: 133515.
89.
ReddyKUKVermaPCRathiA, et al.A comprehensive mechanical characterization of as-printed and saliva soaked 3D printed PEEK specimens for low-cost dental implant applications. Mater Today Commun2023; 36: 106438.
90.
MaZLiLShiX, et al.Enhanced osteogenic activities of polyetheretherketone surface modified by poly (sodium p-styrene sulfonate) via ultraviolet-induced polymerization. J Appl Polym Sci2020; 137: 49157.
91.
Al QahtaniMSWuYSpintzykS, et al.UV-A and UV-C light induced hydrophilization of dental implants. Dent Mater2015; 31: e157–e167.
92.
GuoLSmeetsRKluweL, et al.Cytocompatibility of Titanium, zirconia and modified PEEK after surface treatment using UV light or non-thermal plasma. Int J Mol Sci2019; 20: 5596.
93.
RoyMCortiADanieleS, et al.Early changes of ECM-related gene expression in fibroblasts cultured on TiO2, ZrO2 and PEEK: the beneficial effects of UVC photofunctionalization. J Photochem Photobiol2021; 6: 100023.
94.
MostafaDKassemYMOmarSS, et al.Nano-topographical surface engineering for enhancing bioactivity of PEEK implants (in vitro—histomorphometric study). Clin Oral Investig2023; 27: 6789–6799.
95.
WanTLiLGuoM, et al.Immobilization via polydopamine of dual growth factors on polyetheretherketone: improvement of cell adhesion, proliferation, and osteo-differentiation. J Mater Sci2019; 54: 11179–11196.
96.
ZhengYXiongCZhangS, et al.Bone-like apatite coating on functionalized poly (etheretherketone) surface via tailored silanization layers technique. Mater Sci Eng: C2015; 55: 512–523.
97.
MahjoubiHBuckEManimundaP, et al.Surface phosphonation enhances hydroxyapatite coating adhesion on polyetheretherketone and its osseointegration potential. Acta Biomater2017; 47: 149–158.
98.
WiącekAETerpiłowskiKJurakM, et al.Effect of low-temperature plasma on chitosan-coated PEEK polymer characteristics. Eur Polym J2016; 78: 1–13.
99.
SunZOuyangLMaX, et al.Controllable and durable release of BMP-2-loaded 3D porous sulfonated polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for osteogenic activity enhancement. Colloids Surf B2018; 171: 668–674.
100.
Stiles-ShieldsCCordenMKwasnyM, et al.Predictors of outcome for telephone and face-to-face administered cognitive behavioral therapy for depression. Psychol Med2015; 45: 3205–3215.
101.
Sunarso TsuchiyaAToitaR, et al.Enhanced osseointegration capability of poly (ether ether ketone) via combined phosphate and calcium surface-functionalization. Int J Mol Sci2019; 21: 198.
102.
XuXZuoJZengH, et al.Improving osseointegration potential of 3D printed PEEK implants with biomimetic periodontal ligament fiber hydrogel surface modifications. Adv Funct Mater2023; 34: 2308811.
103.
PengT-YShihY-HHsiaS-M, et al.In vitro assessment of the cell metabolic activity, cytotoxicity, cell attachment, and inflammatory reaction of human oral fibroblasts on polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implant–abutment. Polymers (Basel)2021; 13: 2995.
104.
WangL-XXuXNiY-F, et al.In vivo study of liposome-modified polyetheretherketone implant on bacteriostasis and osseointegration. Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban= J Peking Univ Health Sci2021; 53: 758–763.
105.
XueZWangZHuangJ, et al.Rapid construction of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) biological implants incorporated with brushite (CaHPO4· 2H2O) and antibiotics for anti-infection and enhanced osseointegration. Mater Sci Eng: C2020; 111: 110782.
106.
ZhangWLiuLZhouH, et al.Surface bisphosphonation of polyetheretherketone to manipulate immune response for advanced osseointegration. Mater Des2023; 232: 112151.
107.
LiuLZhengYZhangQ, et al.Surface phosphonation treatment shows dose-dependent enhancement of the bioactivity of polyetheretherketone. RSC Adv2019; 9: 30076–30086.
108.
ArisakaYHakariyaMIwataT, et al.Surface-tethering of methylated polyrotaxanes with 4-vinylbenzyl groups onto poly (ether ether ketone) substrates for improving osteoblast compatibility. Dent Mater J2021; 40: 813–819.
109.
ShaikhMSZafarMSAlnazzawiA. Comparing nanohydroxyapatite graft and other bone grafts in the repair of periodontal infrabony lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Mol Sci2021; 22: 12021.
110.
CoeSC. The deposition, characterisation and biocompatibility of hydroxyapatite and silicon doped hydroxyapatite thin film coatings for orthopaedic applications. Nottinghamshire: University of Nottingham, 2008.
111.
Ling-yuLCong-yingZJieW, et al.Quantitative analysis of nFA/PEEK implant interfaces in Beagle dogs. Shanghai J Stomatology2014; 23: 166.
112.
da CruzMBMarquesJFPeñarrieta-JuanitoGM, et al.Bioactive-enhanced polyetheretherketone dental implant materials: mechanical characterization and cellular responses. J Oral Implantology2021; 47: 9–17.
113.
Molinar-DíazJParsonsAJAhmedI, et al.Poly-Ether-Ether-Ketone (PEEK) biomaterials and composites: challenges, progress, and opportunities. Polym Rev2024: 1–39.
114.
WangNLiHLüW, et al.Effects of TiO2 nanotubes with different diameters on gene expression and osseointegration of implants in minipigs. Biomaterials2011; 32: 6900–6911.
115.
ZafarMSAhmedN. Nano-mechanical evaluation of dental hard tissues using indentation technique. World Appl Sci J2013; 28: 1393–1399.
116.
ZafarMSAhmedN. Nanomechanical characterization of exfoliated and retained deciduous incisors. Technol Health Care2014; 22: 785–793.
117.
MartinAAzhagarasanNRavichandranM, et al.Evaluation of the bioactivity of surface modified polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as an implant material: an in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent2020; 11: 356.
118.
GengY-mRenD-nLiS-y, et al.Hydroxyapatite-incorporation improves bone formation on endosseous PEEK implant in canine tibia. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater2020; 18: 2280800020975172.
119.
DaculsiGGoyenvalleEAguadoE. Improvement of bone ingrowth on PEEK surface implant. Key Eng Mater2011; 493-494: 795–799.
120.
YanMTianXPengG, et al.High temperature rheological behavior and sintering kinetics of CF/PEEK composites during selective laser sintering. Compos Sci Technol2018; 165: 140–147.
121.
BatainehKAl JanaidehM. Effect of different biocompatible implant materials on the mechanical stability of dental implants under excessive oblique load. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2019; 21: 1206–1217.
122.
HaseebSAVinayaKVijaykumarN, et al.Finite element evaluation to compare stress pattern in bone surrounding implant with carbon fiber-reinforced poly-ether-ether-ketone and commercially pure titanium implants. Natl J Maxillofac Surg2022; 13: 243.
123.
MouryaANaharRMishraSK, et al.Stress distribution around different abutments on titanium and CFR-PEEK implant with different prosthetic crowns under parafunctional loading: a 3D FEA study. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res2021; 11: 313–320.
124.
TamrakarSKMishraSKChowdharyR, et al.Comparative analysis of stress distribution around CFR-PEEK implants and titanium implants with different prosthetic crowns: a finite element analysis. Dent Med Probl2021; 58: 359–367.
125.
CarpenterRDKlosterhoffBSTorstrickFB, et al.Effect of porous orthopaedic implant material and structure on load sharing with simulated bone ingrowth: a finite element analysis comparing titanium and PEEK. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2018; 80: 68–76.
126.
QinWLiYMaJ, et al.Mechanical properties and cytotoxicity of hierarchical carbon fiber-reinforced poly (ether-ether-ketone) composites used as implant materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2019; 89: 227–233.
127.
HuangRShaoPBurnsC, et al.Sulfonation of poly (ether ether ketone)(PEEK): kinetic study and characterization. J Appl Polym Sci2001; 82: 2651–2660.
128.
NieminenTKallelaIWuolijokiE, et al.Amorphous and crystalline polyetheretherketone: mechanical properties and tissue reactions during a 3-year follow-up. J Biomed Mater Res A2008; 84: 377–383.
129.
WenzLMerrittKBrownS, et al.In vitro biocompatibility of polyetheretherketone and polysulfone composites. J Biomed Mater Res1990; 24: 207–215.
130.
MorrisonCMacnairRMacDonaldC, et al.In vitro biocompatibility testing of polymers for orthopaedic implants using cultured fibroblasts and osteoblasts. Biomaterials1995; 16: 987–992.
131.
KochFWengDKrämerS, et al.Osseointegration of one-piece zirconia implants compared with a titanium implant of identical design: a histomorphometric study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res2010; 21: 350–356.
132.
SchwitallaAMüllerW-D. PEEK Dental implants: a review of the literature. J Oral Implantology2013; 39: 743–749.
133.
LuTLiJQianS, et al.Enhanced osteogenic and selective antibacterial activities on micro-/nano-structured carbon fiber reinforced polyetheretherketone. J Mater Chem B2016; 4: 2944–2953.
134.
QinWXingTTangB, et al.Mechanical properties and osteogenesis of CFR-PEEK composite with interface strengthening by graphene oxide for implant application. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2023; 148: 106222.
135.
NakaharaITakaoMBandohS, et al.In vivo implant fixation of carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK hip prostheses in an ovine model. J Orthop Res2013; 31: 485–492.
136.
LuTLiuXQianS, et al.Multilevel surface engineering of nanostructured TiO2 on carbon-fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone. Biomaterials2014; 35: 5731–5740.
137.
ElawadlyTRadiIAWEl KhademA, et al.Can PEEK be an implant material? Evaluation of surface topography and wettability of filled versus unfilled PEEK with different surface roughness. J Oral Implantology2017; 43: 456–461.
138.
XuAZhouLDengY, et al.A carboxymethyl chitosan and peptide-decorated polyetheretherketone ternary biocomposite with enhanced antibacterial activity and osseointegration as orthopedic/dental implants. J Mater Chem B2016; 4: 1878–1890.
139.
SchwitallaADZimmermannTSpintigT, et al.Fatigue limits of different PEEK materials for dental implants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2017; 69: 163–168.
140.
Al-NoamanARawlinsonSCF. A novel bioactive glass/graphene oxide composite coating for a polyether ether ketone-based dental implant. Eur J Oral Sci2023; 131: e12915.
141.
TaymourNFahmyAEGepreelMAH, et al.Improved mechanical properties and bioactivity of silicate based bioceramics reinforced poly (ether-ether-ketone) nanocomposites for prosthetic dental implantology. Polymers (Basel)2022; 14: 1632.
142.
OuldyerouAMerdjiAAminallahL, et al.Biomechanical performance of Ti-PEEK dental implants in bone: an in-silico analysis. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2022; 134: 105422.
143.
JassimMMHamadTI. In vitro assessment of some properties of biocompatable polymer dental implant consisting from poly ether ketone (peek) and silicon carbide Nanofiller. Executive Editor2020; 11: 867.
144.
ZhengYXiongCLiX, et al.Covalent attachment of cell-adhesive peptide Gly-Arg-Gly-Asp (GRGD) to poly (etheretherketone) surface by tailored silanization layers technique. Appl Surf Sci2014; 320: 93–101.
145.
QiuPWangPLiuM, et al.Biocompatibility and osteoinductive ability of casein phosphopeptide modified polyetheretherketone. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2023; 11: 1100238.
146.
KhurshidZZafarMQasimS, et al.Advances in nanotechnology for restorative dentistry. Materials (Basel)2015; 8: 717–731.
147.
NajeebSKhurshidZMatinlinnaJP, et al.Nanomodified peek dental implants: bioactive composites and surface modification—A review. Int J Dent2015; 2015: 381759.
148.
BarkarmoSAnderssonMCurrieF, et al.Enhanced bone healing around nanohydroxyapatite-coated polyetheretherketone implants: an experimental study in rabbit bone. J Biomater Appl2014; 29: 737–747.
149.
JavedFVohraFZafarS, et al.Significance of osteogenic surface coatings on implants to enhance osseointegration under osteoporotic-like conditions. Implant Dent2014; 23: 679–686.
150.
BarkarmoSWennerbergAHoffmanM, et al.Nano-hydroxyapatite-coated PEEK implants: a pilot study in rabbit bone. J Biomed Mater Res A2013; 101: 465–471.
151.
JohanssonPJimboRKjellinP, et al.Biomechanical evaluation and surface characterization of a nano-modified surface on PEEK implants: a study in the rabbit tibia. Int J Nanomed2014; 9: 3903–3911.
152.
XieDXuCYeC, et al.Fabrication of submicro-nano structures on polyetheretherketone surface by femtosecond laser for exciting cellular responses of MC3T3-E1 cells/gingival epithelial cells. Int J Nanomed2021; 16: 3201–3216.
153.
GaoALiaoQXieL, et al.Tuning the surface immunomodulatory functions of polyetheretherketone for enhanced osseointegration. Biomaterials2020; 230: 119642.
154.
ZhanXYanJXiangD, et al.Near-infrared light responsive gold nanoparticles coating endows polyetheretherketone with enhanced osseointegration and antibacterial properties. Mater Today Bio2024; 25: 100982.
155.
PengT-YLinD-JMineY, et al.Biofilm formation on the surface of (poly) ether-ether-ketone and in vitro antimicrobial efficacy of photodynamic therapy on peri-implant mucositis. Polymers (Basel)2021; 13: 940.
156.
ZhangSLongJChenL, et al.Treatment methods toward improving the anti-infection ability of poly (etheretherketone) implants for medical applications. Colloids Surf B2022; 218: 112769.
157.
XuXLiYWangL, et al.Triple-functional polyetheretherketone surface with enhanced bacteriostasis and anti-inflammatory and osseointegrative properties for implant application. Biomaterials2019; 212: 98–114.
158.
WangCWangSYangY, et al.Bioinspired, biocompatible and peptide-decorated silk fibroin coatings for enhanced osteogenesis of bioinert implant. J Biomater Sci, Polym Ed2018; 29: 1595–1611.
159.
QinWMaJLiangQ, et al.Tribological, cytotoxicity and antibacterial properties of graphene oxide/carbon fibers/polyetheretherketone composite coatings on ti–6Al–4V alloy as orthopedic/dental implants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2021; 122: 104659.
160.
ZoidisP. The all-on-4 modified polyetheretherketone treatment approach: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent2018; 119: 516–521.
161.
AL-Rabab'ahMHamadnehWAlsalemI, et al.Use of high performance polymers as dental implant abutments and frameworks: a case series report. J Prosthodont2019; 28: 365–372.
162.
BechirESBechirAGiogaC, et al.The advantages of BioHPP polymer as superstructure material in oral implantology. Mater Plast2016; 53: 394–398.
163.
MalóPde Araújo NobreMMoura GuedesC, 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 Res2018; 20: 692–702.
164.
NazariVGhodsiSAlikhasiM, et al.Fracture strength of three-unit implant supported fixed partial dentures with excessive crown height fabricated from different materials. J Dent (Tehran, Iran)2016; 13: 400.
165.
PapaspyridakosPMoktiMChenCJ, et al.Implant and prosthodontic survival rates with implant fixed complete dental prostheses in the edentulous mandible after at least 5 years: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2014; 16: 705–717.
166.
BoziniTPetridisHGarefisK, et al.A meta-analysis of prosthodontic complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in edentulous patients after an observation period of at least 5 years. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Implants2011; 26: 304–318.
167.
BidraASTischlerMPatchC. Survival of 2039 complete arch fixed implant-supported zirconia prostheses: a retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent2018; 119: 220–224.
168.
WimmerTHuffmannAMSEichbergerM, et al.Two-body wear rate of PEEK, CAD/CAM resin composite and PMMA: effect of specimen geometries, antagonist materials and test set-up configuration. Dent Mater2016; 32: e127–e136.
169.
TartagliaGMMaioranaCGalloM, et al.Implant-supported immediately loaded full-arch rehabilitations: comparison of resin and zirconia clinical outcomes in a 5-year retrospective follow-up study. Implant Dent2016; 25: 74–82.
170.
TrindadeRAlbrektssonTGalliS, et al.Bone immune response to materials, part I: titanium, PEEK and copper in comparison to sham at 10 days in rabbit tibia. J Clin Med2018; 7: 526.
171.
TrindadeRAlbrektssonTGalliS, et al.Bone immune response to materials, part II: copper and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) compared to titanium at 10 and 28 days in rabbit tibia. J Clin Med2019; 8: 814.
172.
Al-AsadHMAbdallahHT. Radiographic and clinical assessments of CADCAM titanium and BioHPP framework in maxillary fixed implant-supported prosthesis. Egypt Dent J2024; 70: 363–376.
173.
AtsuSErolU. Marginal fit and fracture resistance of polyetheretherketone, zirconia, and titanium implant-supported prosthesis frameworks for a partially edentulous arch after thermomechanical aging. J Prosthet Dent2024; 131: 273–280.
174.
RefaiOMSalamaHA. Prosthetic maintenance assessment for two implant-retained overdentures reinforced with pekk versus co-cr framework: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent2024; 32: 356–364.
175.
AlqutaibiAYAlnazzawiAAFarghalAE, et al.Impact of acrylic and silicone-based soft-liner materials on biting force and quality of life of the complete denture wearers: a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Med2023; 12: 2073.
176.
MaitiSDhakshinyaMNallaswamyD, et al.Comparative analysis of surface characteristics and hardness of three dimensional printed PEEK vs PEKK-as implant biomaterial. J Osseointegration2024; 16: 16–22.
177.
SadekMAAlhosainyMH. Evaluation of mean retentive values in three different milled framework material in implant supported mandibular overdentures: an in vitro study. Minia J Med Res2024.
178.
SantingHJMeijerHJRaghoebarGM, et al.Fracture strength and failure mode of maxillary implant-supported provisional single crowns: a comparison of composite resin crowns fabricated directly over PEEK abutments and solid titanium abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2012; 14: 882–889.
179.
ÖstmanPOHellmanMSennerbyL, et al.Temporary implant-supported prosthesis for immediate loading according to a chair-side concept: technical note and results from 37 consecutive cases. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2008; 10: 71–77.
180.
de ValJEMSGómez-MorenoGMartínezCP-A, et al.Peri-implant tissue behavior around non-titanium material: experimental study in dogs. Ann Anat-Anatomischer Anz2016; 206: 104–109.
181.
EtxeberriaMLópez-JiménezLMerlosA, et al.Bacterial adhesion efficiency on implant abutments: a comparative study. Int Microbiol2013; 16: 235–242.
182.
TetelmanEDBabbushCA. A new transitional abutment for immediate aesthetics and function. Implant Dent2008; 17: 51–58.
183.
ZafiropoulosGGKDeliGBarteeBK, et al.Single-tooth implant placement and loading in fresh and regenerated extraction sockets. Five-year results: a case series using two different implant designs. J Periodontol2010; 81: 604–615.
184.
KaleliNSaracDKülünkS, et al.Effect of different restorative crown and customized abutment materials on stress distribution in single implants and peripheral bone: a three-dimensional finite element analysis study. J Prosthet Dent2018; 119: 437–445.
185.
HahnelSWieserALangR, et al.Biofilm formation on the surface of modern implant abutment materials. Clin Oral Implants Res2015; 26: 1297–1301.
186.
BressanEStoccheroMJimboR, et al.Microbial leakage at morse taper conometric prosthetic connection: an: in vitro: investigation. Implant Dent2017; 26: 756–761.
187.
AmatoFPolaraGSpedicatoG, et al.Tissue dimensional changes in single-tooth immediate extraction implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2018; 33: 439–447.
188.
Agustín-PanaderoRSerra-PastorBRoig-VanaclochaA, et al.Mechanical behavior of provisional implant prosthetic abutments. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal2015; 20: e94.
189.
TrettoPHWDos SantosMBFSpazzinAO, et al.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 Engin2020; 23: 372–383.
190.
Al-ZordkWElmiseryAGhazyM. Hybrid-abutment-restoration: effect of material type on torque maintenance and fracture resistance after thermal aging. Int J Implant Dent2020; 6: 1–7.
191.
Ortega-MartínezJDelgadoLMOrtiz-HernándezM, et al.In vitro assessment of PEEK and titanium implant abutments: screw loosening and microleakage evaluations under dynamic mechanical testing. J Prosthet Dent2022; 127: 470–476.
192.
RagupathiMMahadevanVAzhagarasanN, et al.Comparative evaluation of the wear resistance of two different implant abutment materials after cyclic loading–an in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent2020; 11: 229.
193.
AtsüSSAksanEBulutAC. Fracture resistance of titanium, zirconia, and ceramic-reinforced polyetheretherketone implant abutments supporting CAD/CAM monolithic lithium disilicate ceramic crowns after aging. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Implants2019; 34: 622–630.
194.
WiessnerAWassmannTWiessnerJM, et al.In vivo biofilm formation on novel PEEK, Titanium, and zirconia implant abutment materials. Int J Mol Sci2023; 24: 1779.
195.
HungCCUCostaRCPereiraG, et al.Oral microbial colonization on titanium and polyetheretherketone dental implant healing abutments: an in vitro and in vivo study. J Prosthet Dent2023: S0022-3913(23)00538-3.
196.
ChokareePPoovarodomPChaijareenontP, et al.Effect of customized and prefabricated healing abutments on peri-implant soft tissue and bone in immediate implant sites: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Med2024; 13: 886.
197.
Diken TurksayarAADonmezMB. Stress behavior of an anterior single implant restored with high-performance polymer abutments under immediate and delayed loading: a 3D FEA study. J Prosthodont2023; 32: 132–138.
198.
AlqahtaniMA. Conditioning of PEEK implant abutment surfaces using photodynamic therapy, nd:YAG Laser, and conventional methods to evaluate shear bond strength. Photobiomodulation Photomed Laser Surg2024; 42: 90–95.
199.
SchwitallaADAbou-EmaraMZimmermannT, et al.The applicability of PEEK-based abutment screws. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2016; 63: 244–251.
200.
StoppieNVan OosterwyckHJansenJ, et al.The influence of Young's modulus of loaded implants on bone remodeling: an experimental and numerical study in the goat knee. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: Off J Soc Biomater Jpn Soc Biomater Aust Soc Biomater Korean Soc Biomater2009; 90: 792–803.
201.
VaitiekūnasIKlimenkoJIvanauskienėE, et al.Stress in the bone and prosthetic components due to" all-on-4" system with polyether-ether-ketone screwing prosthesis. Analysis using 3D finite element method. Stomatologija2020; 22: 125–128.
202.
SaeedMEl-FarMMElkhademAH. Prosthetic complications of screw-retained restoration using multiunit abutments versus intraoral luting on Titanium base in implant-supported complete overdentures randomized clinical trial. Open Access Maced J Med Sci2022; 10: 14–27.
203.
TannousFSteinerMShahinR, et al.Retentive forces and fatigue resistance of thermoplastic resin clasps. Dent Mater2012; 28: 273–278.
204.
BayerSKomorNKramerA, et al.Retention force of plastic clips on implant bars: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res2012; 23: 1377–1384.
205.
KeiligLStarkHBourauelC. Does the material stiffness of novel high-performance polymers for fixed partial dentures influence their biomechanical behavior?Int J Prosthodont2016; 30: 595–597.
206.
FuhrmannGSteinerMFreitag-WolfS, et al.Resin bonding to three types of polyaryletherketones (PAEKs)—durability and influence of surface conditioning. Dent Mater2014; 30: 357–363.
207.
WangMBhardwajGWebsterTJ. Antibacterial properties of PEKK for orthopedic applications. Int J Nanomed2017; 12: 6471–6476.
208.
SrinivasanMKalbererNManiewiczS, et al.Implant-Retained overdentures using an attachment with true-alignment correction: a case series. Int J Prosthodont2019; 32: 482–496.
209.
KoenigARotenburgLFuchsF, et al.Influence of aging of PEEK attachment inserts on the pull-off force of implant-retained overdentures–A laboratory study. Clin Oral Implants Res2023; 34: 1363–1372.
210.
FugariuIde SouzaRFRosasE, et al.Using an attachment system with PEEK matrices for single-implant overdentures: in vitro retention force. J Clin Med2023; 12: 2159.
211.
AbdelazizMSFawzyAMGhaliRM, et al.Retention of different attachment systems for digitally designed mandibular implant overdenture. J Prosthodont2023; 32: 162–169.
212.
MahalakshmiGSruthiTNSharmaPK, et al.An in-vitro evaluation of retention force of all PEEK, all zirconia and zirconia–PEEK telescopic attachment for mandibular overdentures. J Pharm Bioallied Sci2023; 15: S910–S912.
213.
ΒeiMKamalakidisSNPissiotisAL, et al.Retentive force variations in three polyamide and a polyetheretherketone denture attachments for implant-supported overdentures: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent2023: S0022-3913(23)00275-5.
214.
AwaadN. Flexural strength OF MILLED PEEK BAR VERSUS PEKK BAR ON TOOTH SUPPORTED OVERDENTURES. IN VITRO STUDY. Egypt Dent J2024; 70: 387–394.
215.
MohamadOAShaabanSM. Evaluation of marginal bone height changes in implant-supported mandibular overdenture retained with two different materials of bar attachments. Egypt Dent J2024; 70: 519–530.
216.
HelmyMAEl-ShaheedNHEl WaseefFA, et al.Effect of ridge splitting of mandibular knife edge ridges with two-implant retained overdenture with locator attachments on peri-implant bone level and posterior ridge resorption: a one-year preliminary study. J Contemp Dent Pract2024; 24: 834–839.
217.
HassanMMElsarrifHR. A comparative study of different CAD/CAM materials reinforcing implant retained overdenture base material (an in vitro study). Egypt Dent J2024; 70: 377–385.
218.
TanJZHTanMYTohYLS, et al.Three-dimensional positional accuracy of intraoral and laboratory implant scan bodies. J Prosthet Dent2022; 128: 735–744.
219.
MizumotoRMYilmazB. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent2018; 120: 343–352.
220.
ArcuriLPozziALioF, et al.Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: a randomized in vitro trial. J Prosthodont Res2020; 64: 128–136.
221.
HashemiAMHasanzadehMPayaminiaL, et al.Effect of repeated use of different types of scan bodies on transfer accuracy of implant position. J Dent2023; 24: 410.
TodaroMSaponaroGPerquotiF, et al.Bone regeneration and polyetheretherketone implants in Maxillo-facial surgery and neurosurgery: a multidisciplinary study. Biology (Basel)2024; 13: 467.
225.
JärvinenSSuojanenJKormiE, et al.The use of patient specific polyetheretherketone implants for reconstruction of maxillofacial deformities. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg2019; 47: 1072–1076.
226.
IbrahimASBadriCLatiefBS, et al.Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for making bone implants in maxillofacial reconstruction surgery. AITI2017; 14: 156–167.
227.
VillefortRFTribstJPMDal PivaAMdO, et al.Stress distribution on different bar materials in implant-retained palatal obturator. Plos One2020; 15: e0241589.
228.
LiYLiZTianL, et al.Clinical application of 3D-printed PEEK implants for repairing mandibular defects. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg2022; 50: 621–626.
229.
AhmadAFYaakobHKhalilA, et al.Evaluating patients’ satisfaction level after using 3D printed PEEK facial implants in repairing maxillofacial deformities. Ann Med Surg2022; 79: 104095.
230.
SureshVAnolikRPowersD. The utility of polyether-ether-ketone implants adjacent to sinus cavities after craniofacial trauma. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2018; 76: 2361–2369.
231.
WangBHuangMDangP, et al.PEEK in fixed dental prostheses: application and adhesion improvement. Polymers (Basel)2022; 14: 2323.
232.
ZhangSLongJChenL, et al.Treatment methods toward improving the anti-infection ability of poly(etheretherketone) implants for medical applications. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces2022; 218: 112769.
233.
MilinkovicIKrasavcevicADJankovicS, et al.Immunohistochemical analysis of soft tissue response to polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium healing abutments on dental implants: a randomized pilot clinical study. BMC Oral Health2022; 22: 484.
234.
HanXGaoWZhouZ, et al.Application of biomolecules modification strategies on PEEK and its composites for osteogenesis and antibacterial properties. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces2022; 215: 112492.
235.
MishraSKBhasmeySRChowdharyR. Complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses fabricated with PEEK and PEKK framework: a systematic review. Evid Based Dent2023; 24: 193.
236.
AyyadanveettilPThavakkaraVLathaN, et al.Randomized clinical trial of zirconia and polyetheretherketone implant abutments for single-tooth implant restorations: a 5-year evaluation. J Prosthet Dent2022; 128: 1275–1281.
237.
LiTSongZYangX, et al.Influence of processing parameters on the mechanical properties of peek plates by hot compression molding. Materials (Basel)2022; 16: 36.
238.
ConradTLJaekelDJKurtzSM, et al.Effects of the mold temperature on the mechanical properties and crystallinity of hydroxyapatite whisker-reinforced polyetheretherketone scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater2013; 101: 576–583.
239.
SiddiqAKennedyAR. Compression moulding and injection over moulding of porous PEEK components. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2020; 111: 103996.
240.
SchwitallaADAbou-EmaraMZimmermannT, et al.The applicability of PEEK-based abutment screws. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2016; 63: 244–251.
241.
ManzoorFGolbangAJindalS, et al.3D Printed PEEK/HA composites for bone tissue engineering applications: effect of material formulation on mechanical performance and bioactive potential. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2021; 121: 104601.
242.
AbhaySSGanapathyDVeeraiyanDN, et al.Wear resistance, color stability and displacement resistance of milled PEEK crowns compared to zirconia crowns under stimulated chewing and high-performance aging. Polymers (Basel)2021; 13: 3761.
243.
StrubJRRekowEDWitkowskiS. Computer-aided design and fabrication of dental restorations: current systems and future possibilities. J Am Dent Assoc2006; 137: 1289–1296.
244.
LernerHNagyKPrannoN, et al.Trueness and precision of 3D-printed versus milled monolithic zirconia crowns: an in vitro study. J Dent2021; 113: 103792.
245.
AbualsaudRAbussaudMAssudmiY, et al.Physiomechanical and surface characteristics of 3D-printed zirconia: an in vitro study. Materials (Basel)2022; 15: 6988.
246.
Revilla-LeónMMethaniMMMortonD, et al.Internal and marginal discrepancies associated with stereolithography (SLA) additively manufactured zirconia crowns. J Prosthet Dent2020; 124: 730–737.
247.
BrancoASilvaRSantosT, et al.Suitability of 3D printed pieces of nanocrystalline zirconia for dental applications. Dent Mater2020; 36: 442–455.
248.
AhmedMAAKernMMourshedB, et al.Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored with different endocrown designs and materials after artificial ageing. J Prosthodont Res2022; 66: 141–150.
249.
LiuSZhangZZhaoJ, et al.A comparative study on milling-induced damages and residual tensile strength during milling of thermoplastic and thermoset carbon fibre reinforced polymers. Polym Test2023; 125: 108132.
250.
LalamaMRochaMGO'NeillE, et al.Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) post and core restorations: a 3D accuracy analysis between heat-pressed and CAD-CAM fabrication methods. J Prosthodont2022; 31: 537–542.
251.
BaiJBaiQTongZ. Multiscale analyses of surface failure mechanism of single-crystal silicon during micro-milling process. Materials (Basel)2017; 10: 1424.
252.
SongYCaoHQuD, et al.Specific cutting energy optimization of CF/PEEK milling considering size effect. Int J Mech Sci2022; 232: 107618.
253.
YanYMaoYLiB, et al.Machinability of the thermoplastic polymers: PEEK, PI, and PMMA. Polymers (Basel)2021; 13: 69.
254.
BeșliuITamașagISlătineanuL. Investigations on milling performance of Polyetheretherketone (PEEK). PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square [https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3775270/v1]. 03 January 2024.
255.
ChokareePPoovarodomPChaijareenontP, et al.Biomaterials and clinical applications of customized healing abutment-A narrative review. J Funct Biomater2022; 13: 291.
256.
AttiaMABluntLBillsP, et al.Micro-CT analysis of marginal and internal fit of milled and pressed polyetheretherketone single crowns. J Prosthet Dent2023; 129: 906.e1–906.e10.
257.
ShamseddineLMortadaRRifaiK, et al.Marginal and internal fit of pressed ceramic crowns made from conventional and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing wax patterns: an in vitro comparison. J Prosthet Dent2016; 116: 242–248.
258.
ArafaAEmamM. Effect of repeated heat pressing on fracture resistance and mode of failure of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) three-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP). Egypt Dent J2022; 68: 2531–2542.
259.
YazigiCKernMChaarMS, et al.The influence of the restorative material on the mechanical behavior of screw-retained hybrid-abutment-crowns. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2020; 111: 103988.
260.
WatanabeHFellowsCAnH. Digital technologies for restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am2022; 66: 567–590.
261.
Van NoortR. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater2012; 28: 3–12.
262.
ISO, I. 17296-2 Additive Manufacturing—General Principles—Part2: Overview of Process Categories and Feedstock. ISO: Geneva, The Switzerland. 2016.
263.
AlqutaibiAYAlghauliMAAljohaniMHA, et al.Advanced additive manufacturing in implant dentistry: 3D printing technologies, printable materials, current applications and future requirements. Bioprinting2024; 42: e00356.
264.
HeMHuangYXuH, et al.Modification of polyetheretherketone implants: from enhancing bone integration to enabling multi-modal therapeutics. Acta Biomater2021; 129: 18–32.
265.
AlghauliMAAlqutaibiAY. 3D-printed intracoronal restorations, occlusal and laminate veneers: clinical relevance, properties, and behavior compared to milled restorations; a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Esthet Restor Dent2024; 36: 1153–1170.
266.
TianYChenCXuX, et al.A review of 3D printing in dentistry: technologies, affecting factors, and applications. Scanning2021; 2021: 9950131.
267.
HuangSWeiHLiD. Additive manufacturing technologies in the oral implant clinic: a review of current applications and progress. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2023; 11: 1100155.
268.
LuoCLiuYPengB, et al.PEEK For oral applications: recent advances in mechanical and adhesive properties. Polymers (Basel)2023; 15: 386.
269.
LigonSCLiska,RStampflJ, et al.Polymers for 3D printing and customized additive manufacturing. Chem Rev2017; 117: 10212–10290.
270.
RodzeńKSharmaPKMcIlhaggerA, et al.The direct 3D printing of functional PEEK/hydroxyapatite composites via a fused filament fabrication approach. Polymers (Basel)2021; 13: 545.
271.
YangCTianXLiD, et al.Influence of thermal processing conditions in 3D printing on the crystallinity and mechanical properties of PEEK material. J Mater Process Technol2017; 248: 1–7.
272.
WangYZhouYChaiX, et al.Application of three-dimensional printed porous titanium alloy cage and poly-ether-ether-ketone cage in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Zhongguo xiu fu Chong Jian wai ke za zhi= Zhongguo Xiufu Chongjian Waike Zazhi= Chin J Reparative Reconstructive Surg2022; 36: 1126–1131.
