Does Peek Dental Implant Have Thermal Advantage Over Zirconia or Titanium Implants?

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the thermal performance of PEEK dental implant and compare it with its conventional counterparts, i.e., titanium (Ti) and zirconia ([Formula: see text]). Materials and Methods: A three-dimensional finite element model of the dental implant and the surrounding bone was developed to simulate thermal analysis of the implant with three different materials, i.e., Ti, ZrO2 and PEEK for two types of heat load. Zirconia artificial crown was utilized in all three different implant materials. Results: In loading type I, the maximum temperature of the mandible bone at the cervical implant/bone interface was almost the same (37.7∘C) in all models, but the time to reach this temperature was 18[Formula: see text]s for Ti, 30[Formula: see text]s for ZrO2 and 65.7[Formula: see text]s for PEEK implant. The maximum temperature in loading type II was 41.8∘C, 41.6∘C and 41.3∘C, respectively, in ZrO2, Ti and PEEK models. Ti implant showed the fastest rising and recovery time. Conclusions: Under the considered heat loads, the maximum temperatures in the bone were below the bone necrosis temperature in all three cases. In addition the temperature change along the implant body in [Formula: see text] and PEEK implants are smaller than that in Ti. Moreover, PEEK was found to be a thermally viable option for dental implants.

Use of polyetheretheretherketone in dentistry: Literature review

“…ZrO is a good option for patients with visible teeth, due to its esthetics and lack of metallic effects. PEEK may be an option for people with titanium allergy and for those looking for a lighter alternative to titanium implants [50] . For practical terms, the choice of material for dental implants and prostheses depends on the patient's specific needs and esthetic goal.…”