This study was designed to compare the retention strength of monolithic CAD/CAM PEEK crowns to that of CAD/CAM monolithic YTZP-zirconia crowns, both resin-cemented to epoxy resin dies resembling lower molar teeth; after thermomechanical aging simulating 3 months of in-vivo service. Methodology: 22 identical epoxy dies, resembling the preparation of a lower second molar (4mm height, 6° axial convergence and 1 mm-thick deep chamfer finish line), were produced by replicating one master stainless steel die via 22 polyvinyl siloxane impressions. The epoxy dies were randomly equally distributed into 2 groups (Zr and P groups); 11 dies each. The first (control) group (Zr) received CAD/CAM milled monolithic Y-TZP zirconia crowns (Katana™ ML), while the other group (intervention) received CAD/CAM milled monolithic PEEK crowns (breCAM.BioHPP™). Two opposing, laterally projecting (mesial and distal) arms were included in the design of all crowns for the retention test. The fitting surfaces of crowns of both groups were sandblasted with 110-µm alumina particles. All crowns were cemented over their corresponding epoxy dies using the (handmixed) dual-cured, self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX™ U200) (3-kg seating force). Samples were stored in water incubator for 24 hours (37 °C); then, subjected to mechanical aging (37,500 cycles, 49 N load) with simultaneous thermocycling (300 cycles, 5-55 °C, 12 s dwell time). Retention strength was evaluated by vertically pulling-up the crowns from their corresponding dies, through the pull-out test performed via a universal testing machine (UTM). Failure modes were then observed under digital microscope. The mean dislodgment force (retention strength) for each group was calculated, and statistically compared using Student t-test. Statistical analysis was performed with three-way ANOVA. Pair-wise comparison of groups was made with the Tukey test. Pearson's Chi-Square test was used to analyze the failure modes. Results: PEEK crowns group (P) demonstrated statistically insignificant higher retention strength (171.28 N ± 26.30) than zirconia (Zr) crowns group (150.40 N ± 24.40). "Mixed" failure mode was predominant in both groups, followed by the adhesive "cement on crown" failure-mode.

Objective: Evaluation of the biocompatibility of Bio-High Performance Polymer (Bio HPP) crowns veneered with Visio-Ling versus e.max crowns veneered with e.max veneering system. Material and Methods: 42 full-coverage crowns were fabricated for maxillary anterior teeth. A swap was obtained using a sterile paper cone to determine bacterial count and type. Pocket depth (PD) was determined using a William Periodontal probe. Measurements were repeated after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months respectively. Patients were randomly divided into: Group A fabricated from IPS e.max crowns and Group B fabricated from Bio HPP crowns. The preparations were standardized with an equi-gingival, finish line. Fisher’s test was used to compare between the two groups. The significance level was set at P 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed with Windows, Version 23.0. (IBM SPSS Statistics) Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Results: Bio HPP and e.max showed no statistically significant difference in bleeding on probing and PD except after 9and 12 months; Bio HPP showed statistically significantly higher PD than e.max (P-value = 0.027, Effect size = 0.245) and (P-value = 0.011, Effect size = 0.310), respectively. Fisher’s test showed there was no statistically significant difference between total bacterial counts and the type of the two materials. Conclusion: Both e.max and Bio HPP crowns revealed successful biological behavior. No significant difference between the materials regarding the bacterial count and type as well as the pocket depth, however after 9 and 12 months, Bio HPP showed a higher significant difference PD than e.max. Keywords  Biocompatibility;   Bio HPP; e.max; Pocket depth; Bacteria.