Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 20, Issue 9, pp 2493–2500 | Cite as

Fracture load and failure types of different veneered polyetheretherketone fixed dental prostheses

  • Simon Taufall
  • Marlis Eichberger
  • Patrick R. Schmidlin
  • Bogna Stawarczyk
Original Article



The aim of this study is to investigate the fracture load of different veneered PEEK 3-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs) after different aging regimens.


Congruently anatomically shaped 3-unit FDPs were milled using a master stl-data set and randomly divided into four groups (N = 120, n = 30 per veneering group), which were veneered using different veneering methods: (i) digital veneering with breCAM.HIPC, (ii) conventional veneering with crea.lign, (iii) conventional with crea.lign paste, and (iv) using pre-manufactured veneers visio.lign. The FDPs were then adhesively cemented on a metal abutment and fracture loads were measured in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min) before and after aging (10,000 thermal cycles, 5/55 °C). Two- and one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Scheffé tests were used for data analysis (p < 0.05).


This investigation showed an influence of the veneering method on the fracture load results independent of the aging level. The highest fracture load was measured for the FDPs with digital veneering (1882 ± 152 N at baseline, 2021 ± 184 N after thermocycling). The remaining groups showed comparable results, and no impact of thermal aging was observed. Digital and conventional veneers showed cracks in the pontic region starting from the connector area as a main failure type after loading, while the pre-manufactured veneers showed predominantly adhesive failures.


The digital veneering method showed the highest fracture load resistance. Thermal aging showed no impact on the fracture load of all tested veneered PEEK 3-unit FDPs.

Clinical relevance

According to this study results, reliable veneering of PEEK FDPs can be achieved with digital veneering.


Fracture load PEEK Digital veneering Veneering resin composite 



The authors would like to thank bredent for material support of this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


This study received no funding.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Salamone JC (1996) Polymeric materials encyclopedia 4. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ebnesajjad S (2013) Handbook ofpolymer applications in medicine and medical devices. William Andrew PublishingGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kurtz SM, Devine JN (2007) PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials 28:4845–4869CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Toth JM, Wang M, Estes BT, Scifert JL, Seim HB 3rd, Turner AS (2006) Polyetheretherketone as a biomaterial for spinal applications. Biomaterials 27:324–334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stawarczyk B, Beuer F, Wimmer T, Jahn D, Sener B, Roos M et al (2013) Polyetheretherketone—a suitable material for fixed dental prostheses? J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 101:1209–1216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schmidlin PR, Stawarczyk B, Wieland M, Attin T, Hammerle CH, Fischer J (2010) Effect of different surface pre-treatments and luting materials on shear bond strength to PEEK. Dent Mater 26:553–559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klingler JH, Krüger MT, Sircar R, Kogias E, Scholz C, Volz F, Scheiwe C, Hubbe U, et al. (2014) PEEK cages versus PMMA spacers in anterior cervical discectomy: comparison of fusion, subsidence, sagittal alignment, and clinical outcome with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Sci World J. 398396Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Reilly EB, Barnett S, Madden C, Welch B, Mickey B, Rozen S et al (2015) Computed-tomography modeled polyether ether ketone (PEEK) implants in revision cranioplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 68(3):329–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schwitalla A, Muller WD (2013) PEEK dental implants: a review of the literature. J Oral Implantol 39:743–749CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stawarczyk B, Eichberger M, Uhrenbacher J, Wimmer T, Edelhoff D, Schmidlin PR (2015) Three-unit reinforced polyetheretherketone composite FDPs: influence of fabrication method on load-bearing capacity and failure types. Dent Mater J 34:7–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Helkimi E, Carlson G, Helkimo M (1976) Bite force and state dentition. Acta Odontol Scand 35:297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sproesser O, Schmidlin PR, Uhrenbacher J, Eichberger M, Roos M, Stawarczyk B (2014) Work of adhesion between resin composite cement and PEEK as a function of etching duration with sulfuric acid and its correlation with bond strength values. Int J Adhes Adhes 54:184–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hallmann L, Mehl A, Senero N, Hämmerle CHF (2012) The improvement of adhesive properties of PEEK through pre-treatments. Appl Surf Sci 258:7213–7218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keul C, Liebermann A, Schmidlin PR, Roos M, Sener B, Stawarczyk B (2014) Influence of PEEK surface modification on surface properties and bond strength to veneering resin composites. J Adhes Dent 16:383–392PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stawarczyk B, Jordan P, Schmidlin PR, Roos M, Eichberger M, Gernet W et al (2014) PEEK surface treatment effects on tensile bond strength to veneering resins. J Prosthet Dent 112:1278–1288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Uhrenbacher J, Schmidlin PR, Keul C, Eichberger M, Roos M, Gernet W et al (2014) The effect of surface modification on the retention strength of polyetheretherketone crowns adhesively bonded to dentin abutments. J Prosthet Dent 112:1489–1497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sproesser O, Schmidlin PR, Uhrenbacher J, Roos M, Gernet W, Stawarczyk B (2014) Effect of sulfuric acid etching of polyetheretherketone on the shear bond strength to resin cements. J Adhes Dent 16:465–472PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liebermann A, Keul C, Bahr N, Edelhoff D, Eichberger M, Roos M et al (2013) Impact of plasma treatment of PMMA-based CAD/CAM blanks on surface properties as well as on adhesion to self-adhesive resin composite cements. Dent Mater 29:935–944CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ourahmoune R, Salvia M, Mathia TG, Mesrati N (2014) Surface morphology and wettability of sandblasted PEEK and its composites. Scanning 36:64–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stawarczyk B, Bahr N, Beuer F, Wimmer T, Eichberger M, Gernet W et al (2014) Influence of plasma pretreatment on shear bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to polyetheretherketone. Clin Oral Investig 18:163–170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kern M, Lehmann F (2012) Influence of surface conditioning on bonding to polyetheretherketon (PEEK). Dent Mater 28:1280–1283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosentritt M, Preis V, Behr M, Sereno N, Kolbeck C (2015) Shear bond strength between veneering composite and PEEK after different surface modifications. Clin Oral Investig 19:739–744CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stawarczyk B, Thrun H, Eichberger M, Roos M, Edelhoff D, Schweiger J, Schmidlin PR, et al. (2015) Effect of different surface pretreatments and adhesives on the load-bearing capacity of veneered 3-unit PEEK FDPs. J Prosthet Dent 114:666–673Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stawarczyk B, Keul C, Beuer F, Roos M, Schmidlin PR (2013) Tensile bond strength of veneering resins to PEEK: impact of different adhesives. Dent Mater J 32:441–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stawarczyk B, Ender A, Trottmann A, Özcan M, Fischer J, Hämmerle CH (2012) Load-bearing capacity of CAD/CAM milled polymeric three-unit fixed dental prostheses: effect of aging regimens. Clin Oral Investig 16:1669–1677CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Taufall
    • 1
  • Marlis Eichberger
    • 1
  • Patrick R. Schmidlin
    • 2
  • Bogna Stawarczyk
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Prosthodontics, Dental SchoolLudwig-Maximilians-University MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Clinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental MedicineUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations