Fracture load of 3D printed PEEK inlays compared with milled ones, direct resin composite fillings, and sound teeth

Objective The objective of this in vitro study was to investigate fracture load, fracture types, and impact of chewing simulation of human molars restored with 3D printed indirect polyetheretherketone (PEEK) inlays and compare these with milled indirect PEEK inlays, direct resin composite fillings, and sound teeth. Materials and methods A total of 112 molars with form congruent class I cavities were restored with (n = 16/group) 3D printed indirect PEEK inlays via fused layer manufacturing (FLM): (1) Essentium PEEK (ESS), (2) KetaSpire PEEK MS-NT1 (KET), (3) VESTAKEEP i4 G (VES), (4) VICTREX PEEK 450G (VIC), (5) milled indirect PEEK inlays JUVORA Dental Disc 2 (JUV), and (6) direct resin composite fillings out of Tetric EvoCeram (TET). Sound teeth (7) acted as positive control group. Half of the specimens of each group (n = 8) were treated in a chewing simulator combined with thermal cycling (1.2 million x 50 N; 12,000 x 5 degrees C/55 degrees C). Fracture load and fracture types of all molars were determined. Statistical analyses using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and two-way ANOVA with partial eta squared (eta(2)(p)) followed by Scheffe post hoc test, chi square test and Weibull modulus m with 95% confidence interval were computed (p < 0.05). Results ESS and TET demonstrated the lowest fracture load with a minimum of 956 N, whereas sound molars showed the highest values of up to 2981 N. Chewing simulation indicated no impact (p = 0.132). With regard to Weibull modulus, KET presented a lower value after chewing simulation than JUV, whereas TET had the highest value without chewing simulation. All indirect restorations revealed a tooth fracture (75-100%), direct resin composite fillings showed a restoration fracture (87.5%), and 50% of the sound teeth fractured completely or had cusp fractures. Conclusions All 3D printed and milled indirect PEEK inlays as well as the direct resin composite fillings presented a higher fracture load than the expected physiological and maximum chewing forces.