PEEK versus Metallic Attachment-Retained Obturators for Patient Satisfaction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Objective The aim of the study is patients’ satisfaction evaluation and radiographic evaluation of the terminal abutments of attachment-retained maxillary obturators with metal framework versus milled polyetheretherketone (PEEK) framework in the management of maxillectomy cases. Materials and Methods Eighteen participants were randomly divided into three parallel groups (n = 6). Participants of the PEEK group received attachment-retained obturators with milled PEEK framework, the metal group received an attachment-retained obturator with a metallic framework, and the conventional group received conventional clasp-retained obturators with a metallic framework (Control group). The evaluation included was radiographic evaluation and patients’ satisfaction in this study included two scales—”The Obturator Functioning Scale” and “The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck 35” using one-way ANOVA test. Results Both PEEK and metal groups showed a statistically significant lower mean bone loss (p <0.050) compared with the conventional group during all follow-up periods. There is no statistically significant difference between the PEEK and metal groups during all follow-up periods. Regarding patient satisfaction, both the PEEK and metal groups showed a statistically significant decrease score (p <0.050) compared with the conventional group in various aspects of patients’ satisfaction scales as satisfaction with the look and difficulty of talking to the public, and noticeable clasps. In comparison, the PEEK group showed a statistically significant decrease score (p <0.050) than the metal group with respect to satisfaction with the look along all follow-up periods. Conclusions PEEK attachment-retained maxillary definitive obturators could be considered a promising treatment modality for patients with acquired maxillary defects with regard to esthetics and satisfaction.

Insufficient Evidence to Ascertain the Long-Term Survival of PEEK Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies

“…The reasons for their exclusion are provided in Table 1. Therefore, 12 studies were deemed suitable for inclusion in this review [20,24,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. No additional studies were found upon hand searching, and none was found within the references of the included studies.…”

“…Eight of the included studies were case reports [20,[33][34][35][36][37][38]40], two studies were cohort studies [24,39], one study was a randomised controlled trial (RCT) [41] and another one was a case-control study [42]. Case reports documented six patients who received single PEEK prostheses [20,[33][34][35][36][37][38]40].…”

“…Case reports documented six patients who received single PEEK prostheses [20,[33][34][35][36][37][38]40]. The number of patients in the other studies ranged from 15 to 43 [24,39,41,42]. The age range of the patients ranged from 32 to 85 years [20,24,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]42].…”

“…The age range of the patients ranged from 32 to 85 years [20,24,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]42]. The mean age was calculated as 59.96 years [20,24,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]42] while, in one study, the age of the patients was not reported [41]. BioHPP PEEK was used to construct prostheses in five studies [24,34,36,38,40].…”

“…PEEK Optima was used in the construction of prostheses in two studies [33,37] and Ceramill PEEK was also used in two studies [20,35]. While one study reported the use of the PEEK brand called Dental Direkt [41], two studies did not specify the type or brand of PEEK used [39,42]. In four studies, removable PEEK dentures were constructed [20,38,39,42] and fixed dental prostheses (FDP) were fabricated in three studies [24,36,37].…”