Dental Tribune U.S. Edition No. 2, 2018

Implant Tribune U.S. Edition | February 2018 I N DUST RY B3 A retrospective, single-center clinical evaluation using PEEK frameworks for full-arch implant-supported prosthetics Commentary author: Marcus Jarman- Smith, PhD, Invibio Biomaterial Solutions Original presenter: Dr. Bernd Siewert, Clinica Somosaguas, Madrid, Spain Keynote speech: B. Siewert (2017), PEEK in Dental Prosthetics (PEEK in der zahnärztlichen Prothetik Warum? Wann? Wie?), SSO Dental Meeting, Lugano, Switzerland, Feb. 11, 2017 Level of evidence: Level 3 Retrospective Cohort Study Summary There is increased interest in the long- term clinical outcomes and quality of life of patients treated with a high- performance polymer for the framework material for full-arch implant-supported dental prosthetics, rather the traditionally used metal or ceramic materials. than Dr. on Siewert reported his retrospective, single-center clinical study using JUVORA frameworks for full-arch implant-supported prosthetics, made from PEEK-OPTIMA™ high-performance polymer. Siewert conducted clinical and to measure the survival rates of the dental assessments radiological implants and prosthetics, rate of bone loss and the incidence of any biological complications. In addition, scores were collated to measure the oral health and patient quality of life and the satisfaction of patients fitted with a PEEK-based prosthetic. 21 The retrospective data patients, review investigated which corresponded to a total of 96 dental implant fixtures. Patients were treated implant-supported with an prosthetics manufactured with internal from Invibio’s PEEK-based polymer. substructure made full-arch The average follow-up post-prosthetic placement was 56 months (four years, eight months), ranging from the shortest time of one year and two months to the longest time of eight years and nine months. Key findings Dental implant fixture survival rate was reported as high as 99 percent, and PEEK- based prosthetic survival rate was 100 percent versus 89-95 percent1,2 and 92 percent3,4 for titanium5 respectively. An average bone loss of 0.2 mm (+ 1.0) on the mesial aspect and 0.3 mm (+ 0.8) on the distal aspect was observed versus 1-1.5 mm6,7 for titanium. Patient peri-implantitis incidence was low at 1 percent versus 10 percent1,8 for titanium. The mean total oral health and patient quality of life score was 3.1 points (± 3.3), with patient satisfaction deemed “extremely satisfactory.” For titanium, the score averaged at 15.9,10 overall. When compared with the literature values of titanium, JUVORA frameworks implant- supported dental prosthetics showed: full-arch for • Up to 10 percent better implant survival rate • Up to five times less bone loss • Up to 10 times less incidence of peri- implantitis • Up to 8 percent better prosthetic survival rate • Nearly three times better mean total score for oral health and patient quality of life Commentary These results from a retrospective, single-center study are limited, but do provide some initial clinical insight into the long-term outcomes and potential benefits of using a more shock absorbing high-performance polymer substructure for full-arch implant borne prosthetics. References available upon request from the publisher. for more About Dr. Siewert Dr. Bernd Siewert has been in private practice than 20 years. Since 2007, he’s been an instructor at Germany’s International Training Center for Dental Implantology (IFZI) and authored and spoken internationally about his specialty, implantology.11 About the author Dr. Marcus Jarman-Smith, PhD, is a strategic marketing manager with Invibio Biomaterial Solutions. He has worked specifically on medical applications for the high-performance polymer PEEK (polyetheretherketone) for dental applications for more than a decade. In 2001, he received a PhD in chemical engineering, tissue engineering and biomaterials from the University of Bath, in the United Kingdom. AD

Dental Tribune U.S. Edition No. 2, 2018

Pages Overview