We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Prosthodontics



Forgotten password?


Dear readers,

our online journals are moving. The new (and old) issues of all journals can be found at
In most cases you can log in there directly with your e-mail address and your current password. Otherwise we ask you to register again. Thank you very much.

Your Quintessence Publishing House
Int J Prosthodont 32 (2019), No. 4     15. July 2019
Int J Prosthodont 32 (2019), No. 4  (15.07.2019)

Page 361-363, doi:10.11607/ijp.6157, PubMed:31283816

Comparison of Marginal Adaptation of Different Implant-Supported Metal-Free Frameworks Before and After Cementation
Zeighami, Somayeh / Ghodsi, Safoura / Sahebi, Majid / Yazarloo, Samira
Purpose: To compare marginal adaptation before and after cementation of implant-supported metal-free frameworks fabricated from zirconia, polyetheretherketone (PEEK), or composite.
Materials and Methods: Thirty-six CAD/CAM frameworks were constructed from zirconia, PEEK, or composite (n = 12 per material). Marginal gap was measured using a Video Measuring Machine (VMM) system, and repeated-measures analysis of variance was employed for data analysis (P < .05).
Results: Absolute marginal discrepancies of all frameworks decreased significantly after cementation (P < .05). Zirconia and composite frameworks' marginal gap values were clinically acceptable, while PEEK frameworks were judged as being on the borderline of acceptability. Zirconia demonstrated significantly better marginal adaptation than PEEK (P < .05).
Conclusion: Zirconia showed the best marginal adaptation of the three tested metal-free frameworks.
fulltext (no access granted) Endnote-Export