Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
UNKNOWN
NA
24 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2018-11-01
2020-02-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
The Influence of Porcelain Fused to Metal ( PFM) and Zirconia Crowns on Periodontal Health
NCT02461823
Patient Satisfaction, Peri-implant Parameters and Crestal Bone Evaluation of PEEK (Polyetheretherketone) Abutments Versus Zirconium Abutments Restored With PEEK Based Superstructure
NCT03714074
Survival Rate of 2 Implant-supported Short-span Fixed Partial Dentures
NCT06447792
Four-unit Implant Supported Fixed Partial Dentures Fabricated From Different Materials
NCT06422260
"Comparative Study of Supra-Structure Materials in Full-Arch Implant Prosthetics: a Randomized Clinical Trial"
NCT06673355
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Dental implants differ from natural teeth in transmission of functional loads to the bone, where natural teeth and their periodontal ligaments provide proprioception, early detection of occlusal loads and have a shock-absorbing function. Sensitivity and mobility of natural teeth cannot be duplicated in osseointegrated implants,1 therefore most of the forces are concentrated at the crest of the ridge leading to different living reaction including bone resorption and subsequent implant loss.
Minimizing the occlusal loads on osseointegrated implants through selection of a new superstructure material that can absorb part of this excessive force could be believed to be a determining factor in the long-term success of an implant treatment program.
Many restorative materials are used nowadays for construction of final restoration of implant supported superstructures including porcelain fused to metal (PFM), all ceramic, zirconia, hybrid ceramics, and polyetheretherketone (PEEK). PFM restorations are still considered as the gold standard because of their excellent biocompatibility, consistent esthetics, superior strength, and marginal adaptation. Recently, the use of new resilient superstructure material like PEEK-based restoration on implant prosthetics could modify the occlusal forces with subsequent cushioning during function.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
DOUBLE
-The assessor will assess all outcomes blinded to the material assigned for each patient.
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
porcelain fused to metal crown
Although metal free restorations are gained popularity recently, PFM restorations, whether they are tooth-supported or implant-supported are still considered as the gold standard due to their excellent biocompatibility, consistent esthetics, superior strength, and marginal adaptation.2 PFM restorations are also considered durable and long-lasting
PEEK crown
The main concern of dental implants is their lack of elasticity, therefore with the use of PFM, all ceramic or zirconia crowns; the load is directly transferred to bone. That is why up till now researchers are in quest of different materials to enhance soft and hard tissue reaction around implant supported restorations. Recently the use of PEEK as a final restoration on dental implants has wide acceptance, due to its excellent biocompatibility and exceptional physical and chemical properties regarding toughness, hardness and elasticity. In term of load cushioning capacity of the prosthetic elements, PEEK has a comparable modulus of elasticity (4GPa) to that of bone (4.2GPa). Thus, the bone could allow bone stimulation favoring its remodeling without overloading.
PFM Crown
Although metal free restorations are gained popularity recently, PFM restorations, whether they are tooth-supported or implant-supported are still considered as the gold standard due to their excellent biocompatibility, consistent esthetics, superior strength, and marginal adaptation.2 PFM restorations are also considered durable and long-lasting
PEEK crown
The main concern of dental implants is their lack of elasticity, therefore with the use of PFM, all ceramic or zirconia crowns; the load is directly transferred to bone. That is why up till now researchers are in quest of different materials to enhance soft and hard tissue reaction around implant supported restorations. Recently the use of PEEK as a final restoration on dental implants has wide acceptance, due to its excellent biocompatibility and exceptional physical and chemical properties regarding toughness, hardness and elasticity. In term of load cushioning capacity of the prosthetic elements, PEEK has a comparable modulus of elasticity (4GPa) to that of bone (4.2GPa). Thus, the bone could allow bone stimulation favoring its remodeling without overloading
PEEK crown
The main concern of dental implants is their lack of elasticity, therefore with the use of PFM, all ceramic or zirconia crowns; the load is directly transferred to bone. That is why up till now researchers are in quest of different materials to enhance soft and hard tissue reaction around implant supported restorations. Recently the use of PEEK as a final restoration on dental implants has wide acceptance, due to its excellent biocompatibility and exceptional physical and chemical properties regarding toughness, hardness and elasticity. In term of load cushioning capacity of the prosthetic elements, PEEK has a comparable modulus of elasticity (4GPa) to that of bone (4.2GPa). Thus, the bone could allow bone stimulation favoring its remodeling without overloading.
PFM Crown
Although metal free restorations are gained popularity recently, PFM restorations, whether they are tooth-supported or implant-supported are still considered as the gold standard due to their excellent biocompatibility, consistent esthetics, superior strength, and marginal adaptation.2 PFM restorations are also considered durable and long-lasting
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
PEEK crown
The main concern of dental implants is their lack of elasticity, therefore with the use of PFM, all ceramic or zirconia crowns; the load is directly transferred to bone. That is why up till now researchers are in quest of different materials to enhance soft and hard tissue reaction around implant supported restorations. Recently the use of PEEK as a final restoration on dental implants has wide acceptance, due to its excellent biocompatibility and exceptional physical and chemical properties regarding toughness, hardness and elasticity. In term of load cushioning capacity of the prosthetic elements, PEEK has a comparable modulus of elasticity (4GPa) to that of bone (4.2GPa). Thus, the bone could allow bone stimulation favoring its remodeling without overloading.
PFM Crown
Although metal free restorations are gained popularity recently, PFM restorations, whether they are tooth-supported or implant-supported are still considered as the gold standard due to their excellent biocompatibility, consistent esthetics, superior strength, and marginal adaptation.2 PFM restorations are also considered durable and long-lasting
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Patients able to read and sign the informed consent document.
* Medically free patients or with controlled systemic disease.
* Patients with good bone quality and quantity.
* Patients willing to return for follow-up examinations and evaluation.
* Patients having single successfully osseointegrated implant in posterior region.
Exclusion Criteria
* Patients with unsuitable implantation sites (patients with major boney defects or sever bone resorption)
* Pregnant women to avoid any complication that may occur in dental office.
* Patients with uncontrolled systemic disease (hypertensive patient or uncontrolled diabetic patient)
* Psychiatric problems or unrealistic expectations.
* Multiple adjacent missing teeth.
* Patients with bad oral hygiene.
18 Years
70 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Cairo University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Reem Mohamed Ali Gabr
doctor
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Weinberg LA. The biomechanics of force distribution in implant-supported prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8(1):19-31.
Walton TR. An up to 15-year longitudinal study of 515 metal-ceramic FPDs: Part 1. Outcome. Int J Prosthodont. 2002 Sep-Oct;15(5):439-45.
Ponnappan RK, Serhan H, Zarda B, Patel R, Albert T, Vaccaro AR. Biomechanical evaluation and comparison of polyetheretherketone rod system to traditional titanium rod fixation. Spine J. 2009 Mar;9(3):263-7. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.08.002. Epub 2008 Oct 1.
Han KH, Lee JY, Shin SW. Implant- and Tooth-Supported Fixed Prostheses Using a High-Performance Polymer (Pekkton) Framework. Int J Prosthodont. 2016 Sep-Oct;29(5):451-4. doi: 10.11607/ijp.4688.
Parmigiani-Izquierdo JM, Cabana-Munoz ME, Merino JJ, Sanchez-Perez A. Zirconia implants and peek restorations for the replacement of upper molars. Int J Implant Dent. 2017 Dec;3(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s40729-016-0062-2. Epub 2017 Feb 20.
Mombelli A, Marxer M, Gaberthuel T, Grunder U, Lang NP. The microbiota of osseointegrated implants in patients with a history of periodontal disease. J Clin Periodontol. 1995 Feb;22(2):124-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1995.tb00123.x.
Landry RG, Jean M. Periodontal Screening and Recording (PSR) Index: precursors, utility and limitations in a clinical setting. Int Dent J. 2002 Feb;52(1):35-40. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2002.tb00595.x.
UPDEGRAVE WJ. The paralleling extension-cone technique in intraoral dental radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1951 Oct;4(10):1250-61. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(51)90084-9. No abstract available.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
CEBD-CU-2018-06-32
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.