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

• Autor(a) principal: Villefort, Regina Furbino
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Outros Autores: Diamantino, Pedro Jacy Santos [UNESP], Zeidler, Sandra Lúcia Ventorin Von, Borges, Alexandre Luiz Souto [UNESP], Silva-Concílio, Laís Regiane, Saavedra, Guilherme Desiqueira Ferreira Anzaloni [UNESP], Tribst, João Paulo Mendes
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
• Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1731833; http://hdl.handle.net/11449/229639
• topic: dental implants; finite element analysis; polymers; prosthodontics

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.