Cited by 9Dental materials and restorationsDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty

Shock Absorption Capacity of High-Performance Polymers for Dental Implant-Supported Restorations: In Vitro Study

Open access
Menini, Maria, Delucchi, Francesca, Bagnasco, Francesco, Baldi, Domenico, Canullo, Luigi, Setti, Paolo, Migliorati, Marco, Simetti, Enrico +1 more·2024·Dentistry Journal

Abstract

Background: Restorative materials might significantly affect load transmission in peri-implant bone. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the shock absorption capacity of two different polymeric materials to be used for implant-supported prostheses. Methods: A masticatory robot was used to compare the shock absorption capacity of veneered and non-veneered polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), Pekkton®ivory (Cendres+Mètaux), and the glass fiber-reinforced composite (GFRC), TRINIATM (Bicon). Five identical sample crowns for each of the three groups were tested. Forces transmitted at the simulated peri-implant bone were recorded and statistically analyzed. Results: The statistical analysis of forces transmitted at the simulated dental implant revealed significant differences between the materials tested and between these materials and zirconia, glass ceramic, composite resin, and acrylic resin. Only differences between PEKK and veneered PEKK and between PEKK and one of the previously tested composite resins were not statistically significant. PEKK samples demonstrated significantly greater shock absorption capacity compared to GFRC. Conclusions: PEKK revealed optimal shock absorption capacity. Further studies are needed to evaluate its efficacy in the case of long-span prostheses with reduced prosthetic volume.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/dj12040111

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Single-unit zirconia crowns offer excellent tissue biocompatibility, high mechanical strength, and reliable digital processing capabilities.

    “This material offers excellent tissue biocompatibility, high mechanical strength, and reliable digital processing capabilities [27–29].”

    From Implant-supported fixed prosthodontic treatment for ectodermal dysplasia: a case report (2026) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Introduction describes zirconia prostheses as having favorable biocompatible and mechanical properties and identifies zirconia as a commonly used CAD-CAM material. It does not specifically establish these properties for single-unit zirconia crowns; the single crowns tested in this study were made of polymers, not zirconia. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • After appropriate polishing, zirconia surface roughness is lower than that of metal or rough ceramics, reducing plaque accumulation and the risk of peri-implant mucositis.

    “After appropriate polishing, the surface roughness is lower than that of metal or rough ceramics, reducing plaque accumulation and the risk of peri-implant mucositis”

    From Implant-supported fixed prosthodontic treatment for ectodermal dysplasia: a case report (2026) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Introduction discusses zirconia’s biocompatibility and the difficulty of polishing it, but does not compare the roughness of polished zirconia with metal or ceramics. The Methods and Discussion concern shock absorption, not plaque accumulation or peri-implant mucositis; searches for surface roughness, plaque and mucositis found no passage addressing the claim. Page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Menini, M., Delucchi, F., Bagnasco, F., Baldi, D., Canullo, L., Setti, P., Migliorati, M., Simetti, E., & Pesce, P.
Affiliations
  • Division of Prosthodontics and Implant Prosthodontics, Department of Surgical Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, 16132 Genova, Italy
  • University of Genoa (IT)
  • Private Practice, 16012 Genova, Italy
Venue
Dentistry Journal
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-04-17
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
111
ISSN
2304-6767 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4394918724
Cited by
9
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1
FWCI
3.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Dentistry Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutial Research Information System (University of Genoa) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Cendres+Métaux SA
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Dental materials and restorations
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Keywords
shock absorption, dental implants, implant-supported prostheses, PEKK, dental crowns, zirconia, composite resin, acrylic resin, high-performance polymers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review