Surface Texture and Clinical Performance of Milled BioHPP Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Single Posterior Crowns Veneered With Two Different Techniques

Plain-language summary

Research question: For patients requiring posterior single crowns, does the use of Milled BioHPP PEEK copings veneered with CAD/CAM composite resin offer better surface texture and clinical performance when compared Milled BioHPP PEEK copings veneered with manual layering? Statement of the problem Nowadays, metal free restorations are widely used. PEEK is one among these restorations that has many applications in dental field. Owing to PEEK's excellent mechanical properties, it is gaining popularity in prosthodontics. The opaque nature of PEEK allows its use as a framework material in fixed prosthodontics and composite resin material is used as a veneering material to achieve aesthetics . The compatible composite veneering material can be manufactured by both manual and CAD/CAM techniques. Yet, there is no enough research regarding the influence of the veneering technique on the surface texture and clinical performance of these restorations. Rationale PEEK combination of mechanical properties and high biocompatibility make it a very promising material . PEEK based crowns are veneered by composite resin material. Among the methods of fabrication of veneering composite is the manual layering and CAD/CAM techniques . The surface flaws and internal defects determine the strength of the material and affects its performance . Accordingly the evaluation of the veneering technique is mandatory. The rationale for carrying out this study lies in providing an alternative solution to the manual veneering technique, which will, in-turn, provide better surface properties and clinical performance of the restoration and accordingly increase its longevity. Aim of the study: \- The aim of this study is to evaluate the surface texture and clinical performance of milled BioHPP PEEK veneered with CAD/CAM composite resin and compare them to milled BioHPP PEEK veneered manually. Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the surface texture and clinical performance between milled BioHPP PEEK veneered with CAD/CAM composite resin and milled BioHPP PEEK veneered manually. Primary objective: * Primary outcome: (surface texture) of the two groups will be assessed using the modified USPHS. * Secondary outcome: (fracture) of the two groups will be assessed using the modified Ryge criteria.

Who can participate

What they're measuring

Trial details