SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Doğa ve Fen Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 3

Biomechanical Evaluation of PEEK Material on Three-Unit Tooth-Implant-Supported Fixed Partial Dentures: A Finite Element Analysis

PEEK Materyalinin Üç Üyeli Diş-İmplant Destekli Sabit Bölümlü Protezlerde Biyomekanik Değerlendirilmesi: Sonlu Elemanlar Analizi

Samet Tekin(FIRAT UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-8883-8307
Ayşe Rençber Kızılkaya(Fırat üniversitesi)0000-0002-0377-7953
Pages
125–134
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Prosthetic materials can significantly affect stress values.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose:Polyether ether ketone (PEEK), a recently introduced material claiming to absorb stress, has been assessed in limited studies for use in tooth-implant-supported fixed partial dentures (FPDs).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials -Methods: Assuming that the lower right first and second molars are missing, and using computed tomography (CT), a 3D scanner, and different software, a finite element model of a three-unit dental implant-supported FPD in which the implant is placed was created.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Prosthetic materials can significantly affect stress values.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Biyomekanik · Sonlu Elemanlar Analizi · PEEK

Abstract

Purpose:Polyether ether ketone (PEEK), a recently introduced material claiming to absorb stress, has been assessed in limited studies for use in tooth-implant-supported fixed partial dentures (FPDs). This study aims to evaluate the effect of prosthetic material on stress accumulation in the teeth, periodontal tissues, and implants in tooth-implant-supported FPDs using finite element analysis (FEA). Materials -Methods: Assuming that the lower right first and second molars are missing, and using computed tomography (CT), a 3D scanner, and different software, a finite element model of a three-unit dental implant-supported FPD in which the implant is placed was created. Five experimental groups (metal supported ceramic, zirconia-based ceramic, monolithic zirconia, composite coated PEEK and monolithic PEEK) were formed. The prepared models were analyzed by applying a force of 600 N to the food piece, which was modeled as a negative copy of the pontic occlusal surface, and the maximum von Mises stress values were recorded. Results: Significant differences were observed in von Mises stress values depending on the prosthetic material. Group P (the prosthetic material with the lowest elastic modulus; PEEK) showed the highest stress values in cortical bone (108.94 MPa) and implant (722.59 MPa). Stress accumulation in dentin was highest in Group PC (107.05 MPa) and lowest in Group Z (41.89 MPa). Conclusion: Monolithic zirconia exhibited the lowest stress values in the bone tissue, implant, and tooth. Stress was concentrated around the cortical bone and the implant in PEEK materials having a low elastic modulus. Prosthetic materials can significantly affect stress values.

Özet

Amaç:Stresi absorbe ettiği iddiasıyla son yıllarda kullanıma giren polietereterketon (PEEK) materyali, diş-implant destekli sabit bölümlü protezlerde (SBP) sınırlı sayıda çalışmada değerlendirilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, diş-implant destekli sabit bölümlü protezlerde kullanılan protetik materyalin diş, periodontal dokular ve implant üzerindeki stres birikimine etkisini sonlu elemanlar analizi (SEA) kullanarak değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Alt sağ birinci ve ikinci molar dişlerin eksik olduğu varsayılarak; bilgisayarlı tomografi (BT), üç boyutlu tarayıcı ve çeşitli yazılımlar kullanılarak implant yerleştirilmiş üç üyeli diş-implant destekli sabit bölümlü protezin sonlu eleman modeli oluşturuldu. Beş deney grubu oluşturuldu:Metal destekli seramik, Zirkonya altyapılı seramik, Monolitik zirkonya, Kompozit kaplamalı PEEK, Monolitik PEEK. Hazırlanan modellerde, pontiğin oklüzal yüzeyinin negatif kopyası olarak modellenen besin parçasına 600 N kuvvet uygulandı ve maksimum von Mises stres değerleri kaydedildi. Bulgular:Protetik materyale bağlı olarak von Mises stres değerlerinde anlamlı farklılıklar gözlendi. Elastik modülü en düşük materyal olan PEEK'in kullanıldığı Grup P, kortikal kemikte (108,94 MPa) ve implantta (722,59 MPa) en yüksek stres değerlerini gösterdi. Dentindeki stres birikimi Grup PC’de en yüksek (107,05 MPa), Grup Z’de ise en düşük (41,89 MPa) olarak bulundu. Sonuç: Monolitik zirkonya, kemik dokusu, implant ve dişte en düşük stres değerlerini göstermiştir. Düşük elastik modüle sahip PEEK materyallerinde stres, özellikle kortikal kemik ve implant çevresinde yoğunlaşmıştır. Protetik materyal seçimi, oluşan stres değerlerini önemli ölçüde etkileyebilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tekin, S., Kızılkaya, A. R. (2026). Biomechanical Evaluation of PEEK Material on Three-Unit Tooth-Implant-Supported Fixed Partial Dentures: A Finite Element Analysis. Türk Doğa ve Fen Dergisi, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 3, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.46810/tdfd.1975431

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (35)

  1. Tsaousoglou P, Michalakis K, Kang K et al. The effect of rigid and non-rigid connections between implants and teeth on biological and technical complications: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(7):849-63.
  2. Akça K, Uysal S, Çehreli MC. Implant-tooth-supported fixed partial prostheses: correlations between in vivo occlusal bite forces and marginal bone reactions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(3):331-6.
  3. Pesun IJ. Intrusion of teeth in the combination implant-to-natural-tooth fixed partial denture: a review of the theories. J Prosthodont. 1997;6(4):268-77.
  4. Burak Özcelik T, Ersoy E, Yilmaz B. Biomechanical evaluation of tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with various nonrigid connector positions: a finite element analysis. J Prosthodont. 2011;20(1):16-28.
  5. Muddugangadhar B, Amarnath G, Sonika R et al. Meta-analysis of failure and survival rate of implant-supported single crowns, fixed partial denture, and implant tooth-supported prostheses. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(9):11-7.
  6. Michalakis KX, Calvani P, Hirayama H. Biomechanical considerations on tooth-implant supported fixed partial dentures. J Dent Biomech. 2012;3:1758736012462025.
  7. Gotfredsen K, Carlsson GE, Jokstad A et al. Implants and/or teeth: consensus statements and recommendations. J Oral Rehabil. 2008;35:2-8.
  8. Nickenig HJ, Spiekermann H, Wichmann M et al. Survival and complication rates of combined tooth-implant-supported fixed and removable partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2008;21(2):131-7.
  9. Koosha S, Mirhashemi FS. An investigation of three types of tooth implant supported fixed prosthesis designs with 3D finite element analysis. J Dent (Tehran). 2013;10(1):51-63.
  10. Pjetursson BE, Lang NP. Prosthetic treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence. J Oral Rehabil. 2008;35:72-9.
  11. Tangerud T, Grønningsæter AG, Taylor Å. Fixed partial dentures supported by natural teeth and Brånemark system implants: a 3-year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002;17(2):212-9.
  12. Lindh T. Should we extract teeth to avoid tooth-implant combinations? J Oral Rehabil. 2008;35:44-54.
  13. Tsouknidas A, Giannopoulos D, Savvakis S et al. The influence of bone quality on the biomechanical behavior of a tooth-implant fixed partial denture: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(6):e143-54.
  14. Lencioni KA, Noritomi PY, Macedo AP et al. Influence of different implants on the biomechanical behavior of a tooth-implant fixed partial dentures: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol. 2020;46(1):27-34.
  15. Desai SR, Shinde HH. Finite element analysis: basics and its applications in dentistry. Indian J Dent Sci. 2012;4(1).
  16. Trivedi S. Finite element analysis: a boon to dentistry. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2014;4(3):200-3.
  17. Zarone F, Russo S, Sorrentino R. From porcelain-fused-to-metal to zirconia: clinical and experimental considerations. Dent Mater. 2011;27(1):83-96.
  18. Nelson SJ. Wheeler's dental anatomy, physiology and occlusion. 11th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2020.
  19. Waltimo A, Könönen M. A novel bite force recorder and maximal isometric bite force values for healthy young adults. Scand J Dent Res. 1993;101(3):171-5.
  20. Lin CL, Wang JC, Chang WJ. Biomechanical interactions in tooth-implant-supported fixed partial dentures with variations in the number of splinted teeth and connector type: a finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(1):107-17.
  21. Özdemir Doğan D, Polat NT, Polat S et al. Evaluation of “All-on-Four” concept and alternative designs with 3D finite element analysis method. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(4):501-10.
  22. Padhye OV, Herekar M, Patil V et al. Stress distribution in bone and implants in mandibular 6-implant-supported cantilevered fixed prosthesis: a 3D finite element study. Implant Dent. 2015;24(6):680-5.
  23. Wang JC, Huang SF, Lin CL. Biomechanical responses of endodontically treated tooth implant-supported prosthesis. J Endod. 2010;36(10):1688-92.
  24. Al-Omiri MK, Al-Masri M, Alhijawi MM et al. Combined implant and tooth support: an up-to-date comprehensive overview. Int J Dent. 2017;2017:6024565.
  25. Chen Y, Wang C, Huang Y et al. Biomechanical evaluation of the natural abutment teeth in combined tooth-implant-supported telescopic prostheses: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2017;20(9):967-79.
  26. de Paula GA, Silva GC, Vilaça ÊL et al. Biomechanical behavior of tooth-implant supported prostheses with different implant connections: a nonlinear finite element analysis. Implant Dent. 2018;27(3):294-302.
  27. Borg P, Puryer J, McNally L et al. The overall survival, complication-free survival, and related complications of combined tooth-implant fixed partial dentures: a literature review. Dent J (Basel). 2016;4(2):15.
  28. Sirandoni D, Leal E, Weber B et al. Effect of different framework materials in implant-supported fixed mandibular prostheses: a finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(6):e107-14.
  29. Arinc H. Implant-supported fixed partial prostheses with different prosthetic materials: a three-dimensional finite element stress analysis. Implant Dent. 2018;27(3):303-10.
  30. Villefort RF, Diamantino PJS, von Zeidler SLV et al. Mechanical response of PEKK and PEEK as frameworks for implant-supported full-arch fixed dental prosthesis: 3D finite element analysis. Eur J Dent. 2022;16(1):115-21.
  31. Tahilramani G, Barapatre D, Mishra SK et al. Stress distribution in implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis (pontic design) using two different framework materials: a finite element analysis. J Datta Meghe Inst Med Sci Univ. 2023;18(2):239-43.
  32. Zhang Y, Lawn BR. Novel zirconia materials in dentistry. J Dent Res. 2018;97(2):140-7.
  33. Pjetursson BE, Sailer I, Makarov NA et al. All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part II: multiple-unit FDPs. Dent Mater. 2015;31(6):624-39.
  34. Najeeb S, Zafar MS, Khurshid Z et al. Applications of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in oral implantology and prosthodontics. J Prosthodont Res. 2016;60(1):12-9.
  35. Stawarczyk B, Beuer F, Wimmer T et al. Polyetheretherketone-a suitable material for fixed dental prostheses? J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013;101(7):1209-16.