EC Dental Science

Keywords: PEEK; Titanium; Biomaterials; Dental Implants; Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; Radiolucency; Modulus of Elasticity; Biocompatibility; Biomechanics; Dental Materials; Prosthetic

Precis

The dental and oral maxillofacial surgery fields have seen a rise in the use of PEEK as an alternative to traditional titanium (Ti) implants. This article provides a comprehensive yet summarized review of the advantages and disadvantages of both materials, including their mechanical and biocompatibility properties, clinical outcomes, and applications. Despite the growing interest in PEEK, Ti remains the gold standard in dental implantology. However, with ongoing research and development and innovation (R&D&I), PEEK may become a viable alternative in the future. Ultimately, the choice between PEEK and titanium depends and will depend on a range of factors, including the specific application itself, patient needs, and budget. Herein, dentists, oral, and/or maxillofacial surgeons are recommended to carefully evaluate the pros and cons of each material and determine which is the best suited for each individual case.

1. Buser D., et al. “10-Year Survival and Success Rates of 511 Titanium Implants with a Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Surface: A Retrospective Study in 303 Partially Edentulous Patients”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research6 (2012): 839-851.
2. Deisinger U., et al. “Primary stability and osseointegration of two different titanium implant surfaces: an experimental pilot study in rabbits”. BMC Oral Health1 (2019): 277.
3. Gahlert M., et al. “In vivo performance of a novel implant system based on a magnesium-enhanced hydroxyapatite coating”. International Journal of Implant Dentistry1 (2016): 12.
4. Koller M., et al. “Osseointegration of PEEK and titanium dental implants: A histological and biomechanical evaluation in minipigs”. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research - Part B: Applied Biomaterials5 (2015): 984-993.
5. Li C., et al. “Effect of surface modification of titanium and PEEK substrates via a nanostructured calcium phosphate coating on early osteoblast responses”. International Journal of Nanomedicine 13 (2018): 7635-7649.
6. Lim EJ and Kim YJ. “Comparison of mechanical properties of dental implant materials: titanium, pure tantalum, and polyetheretherketone”. The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics1 (2018): 35-41.
7. Liu L., et al. “PEEK dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis of mechanical and biological outcomes”. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 90 (2019): 75-82.
8. Scarano A., et al. “PEEK versus Titanium Implants in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Systematic Review”. Materials2 (2020): 385.
9. Tuna SH and Peker S. “Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) dental implants: A systematic review and clinical case reports”. Journal of Prosthodontic Research4 (2017): 335-345.
10. Wang X., et al. “Biocompatibility and osseointegration of PEEK-based implant modified with micro/nano-textured surface via microarc oxidation”. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research1 (2020): 196.