الفهرس 
REVIEW OF LITERATUREOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 232 |  |  |
| | | from | 232 | | |
Abstract
This randomized clinical study aimed to compare the clinical performance of PEEK and
PFM restorations with regard to the biological parameters, technical outcomes, and patient
satisfaction. The study was conducted in participants receiving single posterior implant
supported crowns
Methodology: Twenty-three patients were enrolled in the study according to specific inclusion
and exclusion criteria. Each patient received an implant to replace single missing tooth in
posterior region. The patients were distributed among two groups. The first group (control)
included (n=12) PFM implant supported crowns, the second group (comparator) included (n=11)
PEEK implant supported crowns. Peri implant soft tissue parameters were evaluated using the
(mPI, BOP, PD, and mGI), crestal bone loss was measured (CBL), technical complications
(screw loosening, veneer chipping, fracture), implant survival, patient satisfaction (VAS), and
FIPS.
Results: there was no statistical significant difference between the mean of soft tissue
parameters in the two groups, the mean crestal bone loss was statistically less in PEEK group
the PFM. No statistical significant differences were found between the types of crows, with
100% implant survival. For the patient satisfaction regarding the crown esthetics PEEK crowns
had statistically higher esthetic acceptance than PFM ones. No statistical significant differences
were found for FIPS score in both groups.
Conclusion: PEEK implant supported crowns appeared to reduce the amount of CBL compared
to PFM crowns in the posterior region. The peri implant soft tissue parameters around PEEK
crowns were comparable to PFM crowns. Clinical evaluation of PEEK implant crowns for the
restoration of single tooth in the posterior region showed good clinical success. PEEK showed
high patient satisfaction regarding the esthetics.