Özarslan MM, et al. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016 Feb;8(1):16-20. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.1.16

Özalp Ö, et al. Imaging Sci Dent. 2018 Dec;48(4):269-275. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2018.48.4.269

Purpose This study aimed to compare the fracture resistance and fracture mode of maxillary central incisors restored with four different sizes and three different post-core systems. Materials and methods One hundred and twenty maxillary incisors were endodontically treated and randomly divided into three groups (12 subgroups). Post cavities for the narrow subgroups were prepared with 1.4-mm-diameter drills in lengths of 7.5 mm (SN) and 10 mm (LN). Post cavities for the wide subgroups were prepared with 1.6-mm-diameter drills in lengths of 7.5 mm (SW) and 10 mm (LW) (n = 10). Group F was restored with glass-fibre post and composite resin core, Group P was restored with custom PEEK post-core and Group Z was restored with custom zirconia post-core. All posts were cemented with a dual-cure resin cement. Zirconia copings were cemented. Specimens were loaded on the palatal surface with a universal testing machine, and the fracture strengths of the teeth were statistically analysed using ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests. Results Statistically significant differences existed between the fracture strengths of the post materials. The highest fracture strength was in Group F, and the lowest was in Group P. Evaluation of the fracture strengths of the post lengths and diameters demonstrated that the short-narrow group of Group Z had the lowest fracture strength (P < .05). The long-wide group of Group F showed the highest fracture resistance. In Group P, no statistically significant difference existed between the post-cores of different dimensions (P > .05). Irreparable fractures were observed mostly in Group Z, and decementation was more common in Group P. Conclusions PEEK post-cores showed sufficient fracture strength for the anterior region, similar to the other two post-core materials. PEEK post-cores showed more decementation and repairable fractures at lower forces, while restoration failure was mostly catastrophic for glass-fibre and zirconia posts.

This study investigated objective and patient-reported esthetic outcomes and their correlation for single-tooth implant restorations in the maxillary anterior region. Nineteen patients were included. Gingival biotypes and smile lines were evaluated. Esthetic evaluation was performed according to the pink and white esthetic scores (PES and WES). Patients rated their satisfaction regarding the implant treatment using a subjective outcome questionnaire and a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS). The mean PES and WES were 10.7 (range 5–13, SD ± 2.24) and 8.6 (range 8–10, SD ± 0.60), respectively. The overall mean VAS was 8.54 ± 0.36 (range 3.8–9.8). No significant correlation was found between VAS and PES or WES (p = 0.475, p = 0.984, respectively). PES and WES scores for gingival biotypes failed to show any statistically significant difference (p = 0.701, p = 0.831). There was a significant negative correlation between the smile line and VAS; indicating that patients with lower smile lines expressed higher patient satisfaction (p = .001). Professionally reported esthetic outcomes (PES and WES results) may not correlate with patient-reported outcomes. Smile line is a significant factor in patient satisfaction, which should be evaluated thoroughly prior to implant placement in the anterior maxilla.