Table 4 Summary of prosthetic designs, materials, and clinical performance.

From: Effects of restorative material on the mechanical performance of three-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with bilateral cantilevers: an in vitro study

Bridge design

Material

Fracture load

Failure mode

Clinical implications

T

PEEK

■■■□□

Favorable (ductile)

Shock-absorbing, reduces stress on implants, potential long-term durability advantage

T

Zirconia (3Y/5Y)

■■■■■

Brittle (catastrophic)

High strength, risk of sudden fracture, requires precise occlusal adjustment

T

Resin composite/PMMA

■□□□□

Wear and deformation

Temporary use only, lacks long-term strength

C

PEEK

■■■□□

Favorable (ductile)

Good shock absorption, may be useful in provisional or low-load cases

C

Zirconia (3Y/5Y)

■■■■■

Brittle (catastrophic)

Ideal for high-load areas, prone to abrupt failure under extreme force

C

Resin composite/PMMA

■□□□□

Wear and deformation

Temporary restoration only, limited mechanical durability

  1. Fracture load scale: ■■■■■ = High, ■■■□□ = Moderate, ■□□□□ = Low.
  2. PEEK, Polyetheretherketone; 3Y/5Y, 3 mol%/5 mol% yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal; PMMA, Polymethyl methacrylate. In this study, “favorable” means lower fracture risk despite lower absolute strength.
Back to article page