Fracture resistance and mode of failure of modified Polyether-ether-ketone versus lithium disilicate endocrowns

Abstract Purpose The current study aimed to compare modified Polyether-ether-ketone's fracture resistance and failure mode versus lithium disilicate glass–ceramic endocrowns. Materials and methods A total of 16 butt-joint endocrown specimens on mandibular second molar teeth were fabricated and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mohamed G. A. Kharboush, Hesham I. Othman, Mohamed F. Aldamaty, Ahmed M. L. Alameldin
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2025-01-01
Series:BMC Oral Health
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05232-3
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1841544249035718656
author Mohamed G. A. Kharboush
Hesham I. Othman
Mohamed F. Aldamaty
Ahmed M. L. Alameldin
author_facet Mohamed G. A. Kharboush
Hesham I. Othman
Mohamed F. Aldamaty
Ahmed M. L. Alameldin
author_sort Mohamed G. A. Kharboush
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Purpose The current study aimed to compare modified Polyether-ether-ketone's fracture resistance and failure mode versus lithium disilicate glass–ceramic endocrowns. Materials and methods A total of 16 butt-joint endocrown specimens on mandibular second molar teeth were fabricated and divided into two equivalent groups; Pressable modified Polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) (BioHPP®) and Pressable lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS e.max® Press). A computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing system was used to digitally create and milled wax patterns. Final restorations were cemented each to its corresponding prepared tooth. Thermomechanical cycling loading representing one year of clinical service was done in a chewing simulator. Fracture resistance was evaluated utilizing a universal testing machine. The failure mode was evaluated by inspecting fractured surfaces using a Stereomicroscope and further examined by a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) amongst both groups. Results A statistically significant variation in fracture resistance was recorded with a mean load of (2762.96 ± 216.15 N) for modified PEEK and (2175.91 ± 267.72 N) for lithium disilicate glass–ceramic endocrowns. Conclusion Modified PEEK endocrowns have higher fracture resistance than lithium disilicate glass–ceramic endocrowns. Moreover, the likeliness of catastrophic fracture in molars receiving endodontic treatment restored by modified PEEK is less than teeth restored with lithium disilicate glass ceramics.
format Article
id doaj-art-e32292d559fd46d196a2cc9314a07172
institution Kabale University
issn 1472-6831
language English
publishDate 2025-01-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Oral Health
spelling doaj-art-e32292d559fd46d196a2cc9314a071722025-01-12T12:42:01ZengBMCBMC Oral Health1472-68312025-01-0125111110.1186/s12903-024-05232-3Fracture resistance and mode of failure of modified Polyether-ether-ketone versus lithium disilicate endocrownsMohamed G. A. Kharboush0Hesham I. Othman1Mohamed F. Aldamaty2Ahmed M. L. Alameldin3Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al-Azhar UniversityDepartment of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al-Azhar UniversityDepartment of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al-Azhar UniversityDepartment of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al-Azhar UniversityAbstract Purpose The current study aimed to compare modified Polyether-ether-ketone's fracture resistance and failure mode versus lithium disilicate glass–ceramic endocrowns. Materials and methods A total of 16 butt-joint endocrown specimens on mandibular second molar teeth were fabricated and divided into two equivalent groups; Pressable modified Polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) (BioHPP®) and Pressable lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS e.max® Press). A computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing system was used to digitally create and milled wax patterns. Final restorations were cemented each to its corresponding prepared tooth. Thermomechanical cycling loading representing one year of clinical service was done in a chewing simulator. Fracture resistance was evaluated utilizing a universal testing machine. The failure mode was evaluated by inspecting fractured surfaces using a Stereomicroscope and further examined by a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) amongst both groups. Results A statistically significant variation in fracture resistance was recorded with a mean load of (2762.96 ± 216.15 N) for modified PEEK and (2175.91 ± 267.72 N) for lithium disilicate glass–ceramic endocrowns. Conclusion Modified PEEK endocrowns have higher fracture resistance than lithium disilicate glass–ceramic endocrowns. Moreover, the likeliness of catastrophic fracture in molars receiving endodontic treatment restored by modified PEEK is less than teeth restored with lithium disilicate glass ceramics.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05232-3EndocrownFailure modeFracture resistanceLithium disilicatePolyether-ether-ketone
spellingShingle Mohamed G. A. Kharboush
Hesham I. Othman
Mohamed F. Aldamaty
Ahmed M. L. Alameldin
Fracture resistance and mode of failure of modified Polyether-ether-ketone versus lithium disilicate endocrowns
BMC Oral Health
Endocrown
Failure mode
Fracture resistance
Lithium disilicate
Polyether-ether-ketone
title Fracture resistance and mode of failure of modified Polyether-ether-ketone versus lithium disilicate endocrowns
title_full Fracture resistance and mode of failure of modified Polyether-ether-ketone versus lithium disilicate endocrowns
title_fullStr Fracture resistance and mode of failure of modified Polyether-ether-ketone versus lithium disilicate endocrowns
title_full_unstemmed Fracture resistance and mode of failure of modified Polyether-ether-ketone versus lithium disilicate endocrowns
title_short Fracture resistance and mode of failure of modified Polyether-ether-ketone versus lithium disilicate endocrowns
title_sort fracture resistance and mode of failure of modified polyether ether ketone versus lithium disilicate endocrowns
topic Endocrown
Failure mode
Fracture resistance
Lithium disilicate
Polyether-ether-ketone
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05232-3
work_keys_str_mv AT mohamedgakharboush fractureresistanceandmodeoffailureofmodifiedpolyetheretherketoneversuslithiumdisilicateendocrowns
AT heshamiothman fractureresistanceandmodeoffailureofmodifiedpolyetheretherketoneversuslithiumdisilicateendocrowns
AT mohamedfaldamaty fractureresistanceandmodeoffailureofmodifiedpolyetheretherketoneversuslithiumdisilicateendocrowns
AT ahmedmlalameldin fractureresistanceandmodeoffailureofmodifiedpolyetheretherketoneversuslithiumdisilicateendocrowns