الفهرس 
Assessment of peri-implant tissues surrounding peek and porcelain fused to metal superstructures in posterior region
Abstract EnglishOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 232 |  |  |
| | | from | 232 | | |
Abstract
Aim: This randomized clinical study aimed to compare the clinical performance of PEEK and PFM restorations with regard to the biological parameters, technical outcomes, and patient satisfaction.The study was conducted in participants receiving single posterior implant supported crowns Methodology : Twenty-three patients were enrolled in the study according to specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each patient received an implant to replace single missing tooth in posterior region. The patients were distributed among two groups.The first group (control) included (n=12) PFM implant supported crowns, the second group (comparator) included (n=11) PEEK implant supported crowns. Peri implant soft tissue parameters were evaluated using the (mPI, BOP, PD, and mGI), crestal bone loss was measured (CBL), technical complications (screw loosening, veneer chipping, fracture), implant survival, patient satisfaction (VAS), and FIPS. Results: there was no statistical significant difference between the mean of soft tissue parameters in the two groups, the mean crestal bone loss was statistically less in PEEK group the PFM. No statistical significant differences were found between the types of crows, with 100% implant survival. For the patient satisfaction regarding the crown esthetics PEEK crowns had statistically higher esthetic acceptance than PFM ones. No statistical significant differences were found for FIPS score in both groups