Evaluation of the stress distribution in CFR-PEEK dental implants by the three-dimensional finite element method.
CFR-PEEK (carbon fiber reforced-poly ether ether ketone) has been demonstrated to be excellent substitute titanium in orthopedic applications and can be manufactured with many physical, mechanical, and surface properties, in several shapes. The aim of this study was to compare, using the three-dimensional finite element method, the stress distribution in the peri-implant support bone of distinct models composed of PEEK components and implants reinforced with 30% carbon fiber (30% CFR-PEEK) or titanium. In simulations with a perfect bonding between the bone and the implant, the 30% CFR-PEEK presented higher stress concentration in the implant neck and the adjacent bone, due to the decreased stiffness and higher deformation in relation to the titanium. However, 30% CFR-PEEK implants and components did not exhibit any advantages in relation to the stress distribution compared to the titanium implants and components.
Sarot
João Rodrigo
JR
Department of Pos-Graduation Course of Implantology, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil. sarotimplantes@terra.com.br
Contar
Cintia Mussi Milani
CM
Cruz
Ariadne Cristiane Cabral da
AC
de Souza Magini
Ricardo
R
D001577:Benzophenones; D002244:Carbon / Q000737:chemistry*; D000077482:Carbon Fiber; D015921:Dental Implants; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry; D020342:Finite Element Analysis; D007659:Ketones / Q000737:chemistry*; D011092:Polyethylene Glycols; D011108:Polymers; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties; D014025:Titanium / Q000737:chemistry
D001577:Benzophenones; D000077482:Carbon Fiber; D015921:Dental Implants; D003764:Dental Materials; D007659:Ketones; D011108:Polymers; C063834:polyetheretherketone; D011092:Polyethylene Glycols; D002244:Carbon; D014025:Titanium
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005 Aug;16(4):486-94
16117775
J Oral Rehabil. 2004 Mar;31(3):233-9
15025655
Biomaterials. 2004 Aug;25(17):3877-85
15020164
Spine J. 2004 Nov-Dec;4(6):681-8
15541703
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Jun;88(6):1308-14
16757765
J Oral Rehabil. 2005 Apr;32(4):279-86
15790383
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Oct;17 Suppl 2:8-18
16968378
Implant Dent. 1992 Winter;1(4):289-94
1298504
Biomaterials. 1995 Mar;16(4):287-95
7772668
J Dent Res. 1971 Jan-Feb;50(1):149-54
5276330
Biomaterials. 2003 Jul;24(15):2661-7
12726720
J Prosthet Dent. 2007 Jun;97(6 Suppl):S35-43
17618932
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Apr;15(2):249-57
15008938
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004 Nov-Dec;19(6):819-25
15623056
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Aug;15(4):401-12
15248874
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989 Winter;4(4):333-40
2639862
J Oral Implantol. 1995;21(3):176-81
8699511
Biomaterials. 2006 Jan;27(3):324-34
16115677
Dent Mater. 2008 Apr;24(4):561-9
18207565
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 Oct;(235):224-36
3416528
J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Jan;93(1):38-44
15623996
J Maxillofac Surg. 2001 Apr;29(2):100-105
11308287
J Biomed Mater Res. 1990 Feb;24(2):207-15
2329115
Dent Mater. 1987 Aug;3(4):200-6
3481594
Biomaterials. 2003 Nov;24(26):4871-9
14530085
Implant Dent. 2005 Jun;14(2):108-16
15968181
J Biomed Mater Res. 1997 Aug;36(2):137-44
9261674
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Oct;17 Suppl 2:52-4
16968381
J Prosthet Dent. 1993 Dec;70(6):513-20
8277440
J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Dec;92(6):523-30
15583556
Biomaterials. 2007 Nov;28(32):4845-69
17686513
Biomaterials. 2002 Apr;23(8):1749-59
11950045
Biomaterials. 1995 Sep;16(13):987-92
8580262