الفهرس 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 154 |  |  |
| | | from | 154 | | |
Abstract
Aim: This study was performed to evaluate the use of PEEK abutments versus zirconium
abutments with lithium disilicate superstructure on the esthetic acceptance and peri-implant
clinical parameters. Zirconium abutments were found to have high surface roughness even after
polishing. This causes a remarkable collapse of the soft tissue papilla that is a primary factor in
the PES, resulting in failed esthetic restoration in the anterior esthetic zone.
Methodology: Twenty patients who needed a single implant restoration in the esthetic zone
were included in this study. Eighteen patients completed screening, baseline, three-month, sixmonth,
and twelve-month follow-up visits. At the screening visit, the patients were randomly
allocated into two groups: Zirconia abutments (A) Group, and PEEK abutments (B) Group,
both of which were restored with IPS e.max CAD superstructure. Patients Satisfaction was
assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS). Pink esthetics, modified plaque index and modified
bleeding index were also assessed.
Results: All implants were successfully osseo-integrated with a 100% survival rate over one
year. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher for the PEEK group than the zirconium
group. The pink esthetic score showed no statistical significance between both groups. The
modified plaque index was significantly lower for the PEEK group than the zirconium group.
The modified gingival index showed no statistical difference between both groups.
Conclusions: PEEK revealed to be a versatile material to replace zirconium for implant
abutments, due to its lower plaque affinity and higher patient satisfaction.