Skip to content

PEEK Bar Versus Titanium Bar Fabricated by CAD-CAM in Mandibular Hybrid Prostheses: A Comparative Study

Comparative Study of PEEK Bar Versus Titanium Bar Fabricated by CAD-CAM in Mandibular Hybrid Prostheses

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT06201169
Enrollment
14
Registered
2024-01-11
Start date
2021-04-15
Completion date
2023-04-25
Last updated
2024-01-12

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Edentulous Jaw

Keywords

Hybrid prosthesis, Polyether-ether-ketone,

Brief summary

CAD/CAM-fabricated PEEK bar exhibited greater dimensional deviation in comparison to its titanium counterpart. Nevertheless, patients with PEEK bars reported higher satisfaction levels and lower marginal bone loss when compared to those with titanium bars.

Detailed description

Fourteen patients with completely edentulous mandibular arch opposing natural dentition were selected and divided into two groups, seven patients in each. All patients received implant-supported hybrid prostheses with a bar fabricated by CAD/CAM milling technique. In group I (control), bar was fabricated from titanium, while in group ӀӀ, the bar was fabricated from PEEK. The evaluation of the study was done at 6 and 12 follow-up periods according to the following: 1- Experimentally by Geomagic (Geomagic, Japan) to detect any dimensional deviation of PEEK bars compared to titanium bars. 2-Clinically by questionnaire to evaluate the patient satisfaction. 3- Radiographically (digital periapical) to measure marginal bone loss around the implants.

Interventions

PROCEDUREimplant placement

All patients received four implants in the lower arch

Sponsors

Tanta University
CollaboratorOTHER
Amr Azab Abd El-Fattah
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Masking description

each participant enrolled in the study randomly and the results of both groups were serialized and assessed by the outcome assessor

Intervention model description

completely edentulous mandibular arch opposing natural dentition were selected

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
40 Years to 60 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Completely edentulous mandibular arch for at least six months have almost of the natural teeth in the maxillary arch with a ranged of age from 40- 60 years old. and normal class Ӏ maxilla-mandibular relationship with a minimum 12-15 mm inter-arch space

Exclusion criteria

* All patient had systemic disorders that may influence soft or hard tissue healing were excluded as: * History of radiation therapy in the head and neck region. * Active infection or inflammation or flabby tissue in the mandibular arch * Bone diseases as osteoporosis. * Clenching or bruxism, temporomandibular joint troubles * Neurological or psychiatric handicap conditions that could interfere with good oral hygiene. * Heavy smoking and drug abusing

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Radiographically (digital periapical)six and twelve monthsmarginal bone loss around the implants

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026