CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Dental Implant Techniques and OutcomesDental materials and restorationsScientific and Engineering Research Topics

Patient-Centered Treatment Outcomes with Full-Arch PEEK Rehabilitation Supported on Four Immediate or Conventionally Loaded Implants. A Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Montero, Javier, Guadilla, Yasmina, Flores, Javier, Pardal-Peláez, Beatriz, Quispe-López, Norberto, Gómez-Polo, Cristina, Dib, Abraham·2021·Journal of Clinical Medicine
DOI 10.3390/jcm10194589PMC PMC8509672
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study aims to assess the treatment outcomes (functional and subjective) of full-arch fixed hybrid rehabilitations made of PEEK (poly-ether-ether-ketone) with milled crowns of nano-filled composite (NFC) supported on four to six implants. In this randomized clinical trial, 34 edentate patients in the upper and/or the lower jaws were treated with the fixed hybrid dentures. In 16 patients (47.1% of the sample), the implants were loaded immediately (IL) by means of a provisional fixed rehabilitation made of PMMA (polymethylmethacrylate) screwed on Multi-Unit (MU) abutments connected after emplacement of the implant; however, in the counterparts (n = 18) these MU abutments were covered by healing caps and were left unloaded during two months (conventional loading protocol—CL), when all patients received a fixed hybrid PEEK-NFC rehabilitation on the upper and/or the lower jaw. Treatment outcomes were assessed 12 months after prostheses delivery. Functional outcomes were calculated according to masticatory performance, estimated by mixing ability tests of two colored chewing gums after ten chewing strokes, by the occlusal force/area recorded by pressure-sensitive sheets, and by electromyography of masseters and temporal muscles at maximum biteforce. The subjective outcomes of the treatment were assessed using both the oral satisfaction scale (visual analog scale) and the Spanish version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-20). The findings of the present study showed that treatment with fixed PEEK-NFC hybrid prostheses significantly improved the masticatory performance, bite force, occlusal pattern, quality of life, and satisfaction, with the IL group being those with significantly higher occlusal bite forces and greater satisfaction in comparison with CL group. It should be concluded that PEEK-NFC hybrid prostheses can improve several patient-centered outcomes and that loading protocol significantly affects the patient’s self-rated satisfaction.

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/jcm10194589

Cites

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

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. [2]Montero J. Bravo M. Vicente M.-P. Galindo M.-P. Lopez-Valverde A. Casals E. Cortes-Martinicorena F.-J. Llodra J.-C. Oral pain and eating problems in Spanish adults and elderly in the Spanish National Survey performed in 2005 J. Orofac. Pain 2011 25 141 152 21528121
  2. [3]Gerritsen A.E. Allen P.F. Witter D.J. Bronkhorst E.M. Creugers N.H. Tooth loss and oral health-related quality of life: A systematic review and meta-analysis Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2010 8 126 10.1186/1477-7525-8-126 21050499 PMC2992503 · DOI
  3. [4]Brånemark P.I. Adell R. Breine U. Hansson B.O. Lindström J. Ohlsson A. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies Scand. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1969 3 81 100 10.3109/02844316909036699 4924041 · DOI
  4. [5]Buser D. Sennerby L. De Bruyn H. Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions Periodontol. 2000 2017 73 7 21 10.1111/prd.12185 28000280 · DOI
  5. [6]Thomason J.M. Feine J. Exley C. Moynihan P. Müller F. Naert I. Ellis J. Barclay C. Butterworth C. Scott B. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients—The York Consensus Statement Br. Dent. J. 2009 207 185 186 10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.728 19696851 · DOI
  6. [7]Attard N. Wei X. Laporte A. Zarb G.A. Ungar W.J. A cost minimization analysis of implant treatment in mandibular edentulous patients Int. J. Prosthodont. 2003 16 271 276 12854791
  7. [8]Müller F. Hernandez M. Grütter L. Aracil-Kessler L. Weingart D. Schimmel M. Masseter muscle thickness, chewing efficiency and bite force in edentulous patients with fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses: A cross-sectional multicenter study Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2011 23 144 150 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02213.x 21631592 · DOI
  8. [9]Borges G.A. Barbin T. Dini C. Maia L.C. Magno M.B. Barão V.A.R. Mesquita M.F. Patient-reported outcome measures and clinical assessment of implant-supported overdentures and fixed prostheses in mandibular edentulous patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.005 33390270 · DOI
  9. [10]Brennan M. Houston F. O’Sullivan M. O’Connell B. Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life outcomes of implant overdentures and fixed complete dentures Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2010 25 791 800 20657876
  10. [11]Pjetursson B.E. Thoma D. Jung R. Zwahlen M. Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012 23 (Suppl. 6) 22 38 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02546.x 23062125 · DOI
  11. [12]Drago C. Howell K. Concepts for Designing and Fabricating Metal Implant Frameworks for Hybrid Implant Prostheses J. Prosthodont. 2012 21 413 424 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00835.x 22413997 · DOI
  12. [13]Qamheya A.H.A. Yeniyol S. Arısan V. Full Mouth Oral Rehabilitation by Maxillary Implant Supported Hybrid Denture Employing a Fiber Reinforced Material Instead of Conventional PMMA Case Rep. Dent. 2015 2015 1 6 10.1155/2015/841745 PMC4628715 26557392 · DOI
  13. [14]Stawarczyk B. Beuer F. Wimmer T. Jahn D. Sener B. Roos M. Schmidlin P.R. Polyetheretherketone—A suitable material for fixed dental prostheses? J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2013 101 1209 1216 10.1002/jbm.b.32932 23564476 · DOI
  14. [15]Maló P. de Araújo Nobre M. Guedes C.M. Almeida R. Silva A. Sereno N. Legatheaux J. Short-term report of an ongoing prospective cohort study evaluating the outcome of full-arch implant-supported fixed hybrid polyetheretherketone-acrylic resin prostheses and the All-on-Four concept Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2018 20 692 702 10.1111/cid.12662 30110132 · DOI
  15. [16]De Araújo Nobre M. Mouda Guedes C. Almeida R. Silva A. Sereno N. Hybrid Polyetheretherketone (PEEK)–Acrylic Resin Prostheses and the All-on-4 Concept: A Full-Arch Implant-Supported Fixed Solution with 3 Years of Follow-Up J. Clin. Med. 2020 9 2187 10.3390/jcm9072187 PMC7408851 32664393 · DOI
  16. [17]Esposito M. Grusovin M.G. Maghaireh H. Worthington H. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: Different times for loading dental implants Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013 28 CD003878 10.1002/14651858.CD003878.pub5 PMC7156879 23543525 · DOI
  17. [18]Kittur N. Oak R. Dekate D. Jadhav S. Dhatrak P. Dental implant stability and its measurements to improve osseointegration at the bone-implant interface: A review Mater. Today 2020 43 1064 1070 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.08.243 · DOI
  18. [19]Montero J. Macedo C. Lopez-Valverde A. Bravo M. Validation of the oral health impact profile (OHIP-20sp) for Spanish edentulous patients Med. Oral. Patol. Oral. Cir. Bucal 2012 17 e469 e476 10.4317/medoral.17498 22143713 PMC3476106 · DOI
  19. [20]Montero J. Leiva L.A. Martín-Quintero I. Barrios-Rodríguez R. Chewing Performance Calculator: An interactive clinical method for quantifying masticatory performance J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021 125 82 88 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.10.006 31987585 · DOI
  20. [21]Leake J.L. An Index of Chewing Ability J. Public Health Dent. 1990 50 262 267 10.1111/j.1752-7325.1990.tb02133.x 2202825 · DOI
  21. [22]Montero J. Bravo M. Albaladejo A. Validation of two complementary oral-health related quality of life indicators (OIDP and OSS 0-10) in two qualitatively distinct samples of the Spanish population Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2008 6 101 10.1186/1477-7525-6-101 19019208 PMC2631008 · DOI
  22. [24]Montero J. A Review of the Major Prosthetic Factors Influencing the Prognosis of Implant Prosthodontics J. Clin. Med. 2021 10 816 10.3390/jcm10040816 33671394 PMC7921991 · DOI
  23. [25]Montero J. Dib A. The effect of age and prosthodontic status on the clinical and electromyographic assessment of the interocclusal rest space J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019 121 791 796 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.09.006 30598312 · DOI
  24. [26]Locker D. Jokovic A. Clarke M. Assessing the responsiveness of measures of oral health-related quality of life Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2004 32 10 18 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2004.00114.x 14961835 · DOI
  25. [27]Schwartz C.E. Sprangers M.A. Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life research Soc. Sci. Med. 1999 48 1531 1548 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00047-7 10400255 · DOI
  26. [29]Montero J. Dib A. Guadilla Y. Flores J. Pardal-Peláez B. Quispe-López N. Gómez-Polo C. Functional and Patient-Centered Treatment Outcomes with Mandibular Overdentures Retained by Two Immediate or Conventionally Loaded Implants: A Randomized Clinical Trial J. Clin. Med. 2021 10 3477 10.3390/jcm10163477 34441773 PMC8396916 · DOI
  27. [30]Baca E. Yengin E. Gökçen-Röhlig B. Sato S. In Vivo evaluation of occlusal contact area and maximum bite force in patients with various types of implant-supported prostheses Acta Odontol. Scand. 2013 71 1181 1187 10.3109/00016357.2012.757360 23297849 · DOI
  28. [31]Suzuki T. Kumagai H. Yoshitomi N. McGlumphy E.A. Occlusal contacts of edentulous patients with mandibular hybrid dentures opposing maxillary complete dentures Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 1999 14 504 509 10453664
  29. [32]Iwaki M. Kanazawa M. Sato D. Miyayasu A. Minakuchi S. Masticatory Function of Immediately Loaded Two-Implant Mandibular Overdentures: A 5-year Prospective Study Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2019 34 1434 1440 10.11607/jomi.7565 31532825 · DOI
  30. [33]Suzuki T. Kumagai H. Watanabe T. Uchida T. Nagao M. Evaluation of complete denture occlusal contacts using pressure-sensitive sheets Int. J. Prosthodont. 1997 10 386 391 9484050
  31. [34]Von Der Gracht I. Derks A. Haselhuhn K. Wolfart S. EMG correlations of edentulous patients with implant overdentures and fixed dental prostheses compared to conventional complete dentures and dentates: A systematic review and meta-analysis Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2016 28 765 773 10.1111/clr.12874 27302014 · DOI
  32. [35]Giannakopoulos N.N. Corteville F. Kappel S. Rammelsberg P. Schindler H.J. Eberhard L. Functional adaptation of the masticatory system to implant-supported mandibular overdentures Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2017 28 529 534 10.1111/clr.12830 27001374 · DOI
  33. [36]Boven G.C. Raghoebar G.M. Vissink A. Meijer H.J.A. Improving masticatory performance, bite force, nutritional state and patient’s satisfaction with implant overdentures: A systematic review of the literature J. Oral Rehabil. 2015 42 220 233 10.1111/joor.12241 25307515 · DOI
  34. [37]Soni R. Yadav H. Pathak A. Bhatnagar A. Kumar V. Comparative evaluation of biting force and chewing efficiency of all-on-four treatment concept with other treatment modalities in completely edentulous individuals J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2020 20 312 320 10.4103/jips.jips_464_19 33223702 PMC7654204 · DOI
  35. [38]Carlsson G.E. Lindquist L.W. Ten-year longitudinal study of masticatory function in edentulous patients treated with fixed complete dentures on osseointegrated implants Int. J. Prosthodont. 1994 7 448 453 7802913
  36. [39]Fueki K. Kimoto K. Ogawa T. Garrett N.R. Effect of implant-supported or retained dentures on masticatory performance: A systematic review J. Prosthet. Dent. 2007 98 470 477 10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60147-4 18061741 · DOI
  37. [40]Prithviraj D.R. Madan V. Harshamayi P. Kumar C.G. Vashisht R. A comparison of masticatory efficiency in conventional dentures, implant retained or supported overdentures and implant supported fixed prostheses: A literature review J. Dent. Implant. 2014 4 153 157 10.4103/0974-6781.140882 · DOI
  38. [41]Preciado A. Del Río J. Lynch C.D. Castillo-Oyagüe R. A new, short, specific questionnaire (QoLIP-10) for evaluating the oral health-related quality of life of implant-retained overdenture and hybrid prosthesis wearers J. Dent. 2013 41 753 763 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.06.014 23831418 · DOI
  39. [42]Sivaramakrishnan G. Sridharan K. Comparison of implant supported mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures on quality of life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies Aust. Dent. J. 2016 61 482 488 10.1111/adj.12416 26836981 · DOI
  40. [43]Schuster A.J. Marcello-Machado R.M. Bielemann A.M. Possebon A.P.D.R. Chagas Junior O.L. Faot F. Immediate vs. conventional loading of Facility-Equator system in mandibular overdenture wearers: 1-year RCT with clinical, biological, and functional evaluation Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2020 22 270 280 10.1111/cid.12902 32363765 · DOI
  41. [44]De Kok I.J. Chang K.H. Lu T.S. Cooper L.F. Comparison of three-implant-supported fixed dentures and two-implant-retained overdentures in the edentulous mandible: A pilot study of treatment efficacy and patient satisfaction Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2011 26 415 426 21483895
  42. [45]Omura Y. Kanazawa M. Sato D. Kasugai S. Minakuchi S. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes between immediately and conventionally loaded mandibular two-implant overdentures: A preliminary study J. Prosthodont. Res. 2016 60 185 192 10.1016/j.jpor.2015.12.010 26803560 · DOI
  43. [46]Erkapers M. Ekstrand K. Baer R.A. Toljanic J.A. Thor A. Patient satisfaction following dental implant treatment with immediate loading in the edentulous atrophic maxilla Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2011 26 356 364 21483889
  44. [47]Papathanasiou I. Kamposiora P. Papavasiliou G. Ferrari M. The use of PEEK in digital prosthodontics: A narrative review BMC Oral Health 2020 20 217 10.1186/s12903-020-01202-7 32741366 PMC7398079 · DOI
  45. [48]Zoidis P. The all-on-4 modified polyetheretherketone treatment approach: A clinical report J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018 119 516 521 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.04.020 28709679 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Montero, J., Guadilla, Y., Flores, J., Pardal-Peláez, B., Quispe-López, N., Gómez-Polo, C., & Dib, A.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Salamanca (ES)
  • Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Salamanca, 37007 Salamanca, Spain
Corresponding author
Montero, Javier
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-10-05
Volume
10
Issue
19
Pages
4589
ISSN
2077-0383 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/jcm10194589
PMC
PMC8509672
OpenAlex
W3202774033
Cited by
18
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5
FWCI
3.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Hispana (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Gredos (University of Salamanca) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Dental materials and restorations
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Scientific and Engineering Research Topics
Keywords
PEEK, nanofilled composite, full-arch rehabilitation, immediate implant loading, conventional implant loading, edentulous patients, masticatory performance, bite force, occlusal pattern, patient satisfaction, quality of life, implant-supported dentures

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