الفهرس 
DeclarationOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 208 |  |  |
| | | from | 208 | | |
Abstract
Aim: Evaluate the marginal integrity and Clinical performance of PEEK endocrowns compared to
lithium disilicate (E-Max) ceramic endocrowns.
Methodology: Twenty six endocrowns were fabricated for posterior endodontically treated teeth.
Patients were divided into two groups according to the material used for fabrication of the
restorations, group 1(control group) received E-Max endocrowns while group 2 (intervention
group) received Bio HPP PEEK endocrowns. The marginal integrity and internal fit were assessed
using the silicon replica approach, in which each replica was sectioned into four segments, each
with five reference points that were evaluated using a digital microscope at 35X magnification.
After final cementation, the clinical performance of the restorations was evaluated according to the
USPHS criteria in terms of marginal adaptation, fracture, and retention. These measurements were
repeated after three, six, nine and twelve months respectively.
Results: The marginal and internal gaps of both groups were within the clinical acceptable range,
but E-Max group recorded statistically significant higher internal gap mean value than Peek group.
Regarding the clinical performance all restorations showed 100% alpha and there was no
statistically significant difference between both groups for all tested outcomes (Marginal adaptation,
fracture, and retention) over one year.
Conclusions: Within limitations of this study, the following conclusion could be drawn as follows:
1. PEEK endocrown restorations revealed better internal fit than E-Max.
2. The marginal and internal fit for E-Max press and Bio HPP PEEK press endocrown
restorations revealed a clinically acceptable range.
3. Both E-Max press and Bio HPP PEEK endocrown restorations showed high
successful clinical performance in terms of marginal adaptation, fracture, and
retention over a period of one year.