• Users Online: 605
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 240-248

Comparative prospective clinical evaluation of computer aided design/ computer aided manufacturing milled BioHPP PEEK inlays and Zirconia inlays


Department of Dental Surgery and Oral Health Sciences, Division of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Sandeep Singh Reyal
Department of Dental Surgery and Oral Health Sciences, Division of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune - 411 040, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_57_21

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The aim of the present study was to clinically assess the performance of BioHPP PEEK material when used for inlay restoration and to compare it with widely used zirconia inlays. This clinical study was undertaken to evaluate their performance in terms of retention, colour matching, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, surface texture, wear-anatomic form, postoperative sensitivity and fracture resistance using the modified Ryge's criteria. Settings and Design: In vivo - prospective clinical study. Material and Methods: A total of 40 patients were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria requiring inlays. The patients were further divided in two groups: Group A - Consisted of 20 permanent maxillary and mandibular carious posterior teeth restored with BioHPP PEEK inlays and Group B - Consisted of 20 permanent maxillary and mandibular carious posterior teeth restored with CAD/CAM zirconia inlays (sintered monolithic zirconia, Zolid, Amann Girrbach AG, Koblach, Austria). Two prosthodontists, who were blinded to the study groups, evaluated the restorations. In cases of widely different scores, the observers re-evaluated the restorations and reached a consensus. Restorations were evaluated at the end of 1 week (base line), 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months, using modified Ryge's criteria. Statistical Analysis Used: Chi- square' test, 'Fisher's exact' test and 'z' test. Results: 90% of the BioHPP PEEK inlays were rated satisfactory in comparison to 95% of zirconia inlays. Sensitivity score was 10% in BioHPP PEEK inlays and 15% in zirconia inlays. No significant difference was encountered with other parameters in this study. Conclusion: The BioHPP PEEK when used as indirect aesthetic restorations was found to be satisfactory with relatively low rate of fracture over an observation period of one year in comparison to zirconia inlays in posterior teeth. The BioHPP PEEK can be a suitable alternative with high level of accuracy in terms of retention, marginal quality and aesthetics.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed563    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded164    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal