الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 116 |  |  |
| | | from | 116 | | |
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate patient satisfaction (VAS) and prosthetic outcomes of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) Versus Titanium Zirconium fixed prostheses supported by six maxillary implants and opposed by distal extension removable partial denture. Materials and methods : Six patients were selected for this study from a previous study who have already received previous implants in the maxillary arch. The patients were divided into two groups : Group1 received maxillary titanium zirconium full arch fixed prosthesis and mandibular distal extension partial denture, group 2 received maxillary PEEK composite full arch fixed prosthesis and mandibular distal extension partial denture Patient satisfaction was evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS) after six months and Prosthetic complications were measured on the patient and implant levels after six months. Results : Regarding patient satisfaction, there was no significant difference between groups regarding satisfaction maxillary prosthesis occlusion, comfort, ease of speaking and satisfaction with healing. For satisfaction maxillary prosthesis compared to natural teeth, ease of chewing, ease of cleaning and appearance, Titanium zirconium group showed a significantly higher patient satisfaction than PEEK composite group. Regarding prosthetic complications, on patient level : no prosthetic complications occurred in Titanium zirconium group. On the other hand, Artificial gingival fracture (33.3%), Decementation of teeth (33.3%), and Veener fracture/separation (66.7%) occurred in PEEK composite group. There was no significant difference in incidence of prosthetic complications between groups noted. On implant level : Prosthetic screw loosening occurred twice in one patient in titanium zirconium group. On the other hand, Prosthetic screw loosening (44.4%), and cylinder fracture separation (33.3%) occurred in PEEK composite group. PEEK composite group showed significant higher incidence of prosthetic complications on implant level regarding Prosthetic screw loosening, and cylinder fracture separation than titanium zirconium group. Conclusion : Within the limitations of this study, the titanium framework with zircon crowns may be a suitable treatment option for implant supported fixed restoration in comparison with PEEK in patients with maxillary edentulous arches opposed by distal extension mandibular ridges, as it was associated with higher patient satisfaction and less prosthetic outcomes after six months. However, it was associated with increasing prosthetic screw loosening.