{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02023608768971332, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016863406408094434, 'mean_word_length': 4.836065573770492, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Lithium disilicate and peek implant-retained single crowns - a randomized, prospective clinical study

Introduction/Objective. Comparing two materials under the same conditions is
 the best way to define differences between them. PEEK is a polymer that has
 many possible uses in dentistry as already well-known lithium disilicate
 ceramics. The aim of this study was to compare peri-implant soft tissue
 healing and evaluate patient satisfaction with esthetics in different
 observation periods, as well as the success and survival rate of both types
 of crowns. Methods. The study was conducted as a clinical, prospective,
 randomized split-mouth study on 17 patients with bilaterally missing upper
 teeth of the same type, replaced with dental implants. Study outcomes have
 been analyzed with subjective (VAS scale) and objective parameters (MBI, MPI
 and PPD) baseline, six and twelve months after fixing crowns onto the
 implants. Results. Comparison of the results between PEEK and lithium
 disilicate crowns showed no statistical differences in terms of MPI, MBI and
 PPD in the observed periods. Analyzing MPI during observation periods in the
 PEEK group of crowns, statistical significance was registered between
 baseline values and after 6 months. Also, statistical significance was
 noticed in terms of PPD during the observation time both in the study and
 control group of crowns. Results for VAS for the esthetics showed no
 statistically significant difference between the groups, while VAS for
 restoration satisfaction showed a statistically significant difference. 
 Conclusion. This study showed that scores of the applied subjective and
 objective parameters can be a reliable tool to rate the clinical outcome of
 implant-retained single crowns over time.