Mechanical Comparison of Graphene with Polyetheretherketone and Titanium for Dental Implant Applications

Ireddy Kavya Sri; Ram Basany; Chikkam Bindhu Sree; Badugu Satyavathi; Sravalli Kodipalli

doi:10.7126/cumudj.1903706

EN

Mechanical Comparison of Graphene with Polyetheretherketone and Titanium for Dental Implant Applications

Abstract

Objectives: The long-term success of implant-supported prostheses and load-bearing implant systems depends on the mechanical properties of advanced structured biomaterials. Graphene has long been used in graphene-based composites; however, the mechanical characteristics of graphene as a standalone structured material are not well understood. Since comparative mechanical characterization across nano-structured, polymeric, and metallic biomaterials is necessary for interdisciplinary materials development, this study compares the flexural strength and surface hardness of graphene with Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium, which are widely used implant biomaterials. Materials and Methods: A total of 30 specimens (n=10 for graphene, PEEK, and titanium) were milled using CAD/CAM technology according to ISO 178 for flexural strength and ISO 6507-1 for Vickers hardness. Flexural strength was measured with a three-point bending test at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min to assess the flexural strength of the samples. Surface hardness was tested on the same samples by using a microhardness tester. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey post hoc test. Effect sizes were calculated using eta squared (ƞ2). p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The mechanical performance parameters, mean flexural strength (F (2,27) = 4433.2, p<0.001) and surface hardness (F (2,27) =1248.9, p<0.001) of the three materials were significantly different, with the highest flexural strength (2111.17±45.00 MPa) and surface hardness (367.70±12.148 HV) in titanium. Furthermore, flexural strength was higher in PEEK (181.37 ± 5.24 MPa) than in graphene (109.35±35 MPa), and the surface hardness was higher in graphene (82.20±5.473 HV) than in PEEK (66.40±6.802 HV). Conclusions: Low flexural strength and intermediate surface hardness of graphene support its viable use as a coating or reinforcement rather than as a primary structural framework, defining realistic clinical applications.

Keywords

Ethical Statement

Not applicable

References

1. Papaspyridakos P, Mokti M, Chen C, Benic GI, Gallucci GO, Chronopoulos V. Implant and prosthodontic survival rates with implant fixed complete dental prostheses in the edentulous mandible after at least 5 years: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Rel Res 2014;16(5):705-717.
2. Ionescu RN, Totan AR, Imre MM, Țâncu AMC, Pantea M, Butucescu M, et al. Prosthetic materials used for implant-supported restorations and their biochemical oral interactions: a narrative review. Materials (Basel) 2022;15(3):1016.
3. Cevik P, Schimmel M, Yilmaz B. New generation CAD‐CAM materials for implant‐supported definitive frameworks fabricated by using subtractive technologies. Biomed Res Int 2022;2022(1):3074182.
4. Yılmaz O, Göze Saygın A, Bolayır G. Comparison of fracture resistance of implant-supported fixed prothesis substructure materials with different cross-sectional geometry. BMC Oral Health 2025;25(1):645.
5. Saini M, Singh Y, Arora P, Arora V, Jain K. Implant biomaterials: a comprehensive review. World J Clin Cases 2015;3(1):52-57.
6. Elmesery AMH, Korsel AM, Elshahawy W. Impact of implant abutment materials on force damping response and marginal fit of implant supported restoration. BMC Oral Health 2025;25(1):738.
7. Rekow ED. Digital dentistry: the new state of the art — Is it disruptive or destructive? Dent Mater 2020;36(1):9-24.
8. Awada A, Nathanson D. Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114(4):587-593.

9. Cabbarova L, Tunçdemir AR, Mohammadi R. Biomechanical evaluation of framework materials in all-on-four versus all-on-six prostheses: a finite element study. Clin Exp Dent Res 2026;12(1):e70277.
10. Mai HN, Kwon TY, Hong MH, Lee DH. Comparative study of the fit accuracy of full-arch bar frameworks fabricated with different presintered cobalt-chromium alloys. Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:1-7.
11. Kunii J, Hotta Y, Tamaki Y, Ozawa A, Kobayashi Y, Fujishima A, et al. Effect of sintering on the marginal and internal fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia frameworks. Dent Mater J 2007;26(6):820-826.
12. De Jager N, Münker TJAG, Guilardi LF, Jansen VJ, Sportel YGE, Kleverlaan CJ. The relation between impact strength and flexural strength of dental materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2021;122:104658.
13. Alghazzawi TF. Relation of crown failure load to flexural strength for three contemporary dental polymers. Polymers (Basel) 2023;15(21):4312.
14. Mehrpour H, Farjood E, Giti R, Barfi Ghasrdashti A, Heidari H. Evaluation of the flexural strength of interim restorative materials in fixed prosthodontics. J Dent (Shiraz) 2016;17(3):201-206.
15. Sabatini GP, Yoon HI, Çakmak G, Al-Haj Husain N, Yilmaz B, Dönmez MB. Mechanical properties and reliability of an additively manufactured resin incorporated with a commercially available ceramic composite concentrate. J Prosthet Dent 2025;133(4):1089.e1-1089.e7.
16. Rashid H. The effect of surface roughness on ceramics used in dentistry: a review of literature. Eur J Dent. 2014;8(4):571-579.
17. Chun KJ, Lee JY. Comparative study of mechanical properties of dental restorative materials and dental hard tissues in compressive loads. J Dent Biomech 2014;5:1758736014555246.
18. Colombo M, Poggio C, Lasagna A, Chiesa M, Scribante A. Vickers micro-hardness of new restorative CAD/CAM dental materials: evaluation and comparison after exposure to acidic drink. Materials (Basel) 2019;12(8):1246.
19. Roma M, Hegde S. Implications of graphene-based materials in dentistry: present and future. Front Chem 2024;11:1308948.
20. Madhav VNV, Joshi S, Kulkarni M. Graphene: a game changer in prosthodontics and implant dentistry. Int J Res Med Sci 2022;10(7):1565.
21. Punset M, Brizuela A, Pérez-Pevida E, Herrero-Climent M, Manero JM, Gil J. Mechanical characterization of dental prostheses manufactured with pmma–graphene composites. Materials 2022;15(15):5391.
22. Sahm BD, Teixeira ABV, Dos Reis AC. Graphene loaded into dental polymers as reinforcement of mechanical properties: a systematic review. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2023;59:160-166.
23. Pera F, Pesce P, Bagnasco F, Pancini N, Carossa M, Baldelli L, et al. Comparison of milled full-arch implant-supported frameworks realised with a full digital workflow or from conventional impression: a clinical study. Materials (Basel) 2023;16(2):833.
24. ISO 178:2019. ISO. Accessed November 21, 2025. https://www.iso.org/standard/70513.html
25. ISO 6507-1:2023. ISO. Accessed November 21, 2025. https://www.iso.org/standard/83898.html
26. Ramírez-Vargas GG, Medina Y Mendoza JE, Aliaga-Mariñas AS, Ladera-Castañeda MI, Cervantes-Ganoza LA, Cayo-Rojas CF. Effect of polishing on the surface microhardness of nanohybrid composite resins subjected to 35% hydrogen peroxide: an in vitro study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2021;11(2):216-221.
27. Nazari V, Ghodsi S, Alikhasi M, Sahebi M, Shamshiri AR. Fracture strength of three-unit implant supported fixed partial dentures with excessive crown height fabricated from different materials. J Dent (Tehran) 2016;13(6):400-406.
28. Silva RCS, Agrelli A, Andrade AN, Mendes-Marques CL, Arruda IRS, Santos LRL, et al. Titanium dental implants: an overview of applied nanobiotechnology to improve biocompatibility and prevent infections. Materials 2022;15(9):3150.
29. Moharil S, Reche A, Durge K. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as a biomaterial: an overview. Cureus 2023;15(8):e44307.
30. Baktır S, Demi̇rbuğa S, Balkaya H, Danışman Ş, Önses MS, Çeli̇k N. Evaluation of polymer-based surface coatings on the biological and mechanical performance of hybrid CAD/CAM dental composites. Dent Mater 2026;42(2):270-291.
31. Mutneja P, Shrivastava SP, Dable R, Nirmal Raj A, Srivastava SB, Haque M. Comparison of mechanical properties of PEEK and PMMA: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021;22(2):179-183.
32. Barman DrP, Kumar DrR, M.V DrSK, Gahlot DrMS. Influence of chemical disinfection on the flexural strength of PETG and PMMA materials used in occlusal splints. IOSRJDMS. 2025;27(7):60-66.
33. Abdullah AM, Mohamad D. Antibacterial properties of graphene and its reinforcement effect on compressive properties of PMMA. Biointerface Res Appl Chem 2022;13(4):393.
34. Shen H, Zhang L, Liu M, Zhang Z. Biomedical applications of graphene. Theranostics 2012;2(3):283-294.
35. Fakhri MS, Kadhim SA, Njim EK, Madan R. Mechanical and nonlinear hyperelastic behavior of EPDM/glass fiber/graphene nanoplatelets hybrid composites: experimental characterization and analytical modeling. Advances in Materials Research 2025;14(6):557-573.
36. Kontonasaki E, Giasimakopoulos P, Rigos AE. Strength and aging resistance of monolithic zirconia: an update to current knowledge. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2020;56(1):1-23.
37. Vaidya RY, I.N A, Balakrishnan D, Nakata H, S K, Krishnamoorthy G. Impact of graphene incorporation in dental implants–a scoping review. Heliyon 2024;10(18):e37751.
38. Blatz MB, Conejo J. The current state of chairside digital dentistry and materials. Dent Clin North Am2019;63(2):175-197.
39. Abduo J, Lyons K. Rationale for the use of CAD/CAM technology in implant prosthodontics. Int J Dent 2013;2013:768121.
40. Janeva NM, Kovacevska G, Elencevski S, Panchevska S, Mijoska A, Lazarevska B. Advantages of CAD/CAM versus Conventional complete dentures - a review. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2018;6(8):1498-1502.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Dental Materials

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Ireddy Kavya Sri ^*
0009-0001-9455-8472
India

Ram Basany
0000-0002-0248-5895
India

Chikkam Bindhu Sree
0009-0001-7898-5175
India

Badugu Satyavathi
0009-0005-5592-3202
India

Sravalli Kodipalli
0000-0002-5846-9560
India

Publication Date

September 30, 2026

Submission Date

March 5, 2026

Acceptance Date

July 12, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 29 Number: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1903706

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA44SF78GH

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Sri, I. K., Basany, R., Bindhu Sree, C., Satyavathi, B., & Kodipalli, S. (2026). Mechanical Comparison of Graphene with Polyetheretherketone and Titanium for Dental Implant Applications. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal, 29(3), 471-476. https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1903706

AMA

1.Sri IK, Basany R, Bindhu Sree C, Satyavathi B, Kodipalli S. Mechanical Comparison of Graphene with Polyetheretherketone and Titanium for Dental Implant Applications. Cumhuriyet Dent J. 2026;29(3):471-476. doi:10.7126/cumudj.1903706

Chicago

Sri, Ireddy Kavya, Ram Basany, Chikkam Bindhu Sree, Badugu Satyavathi, and Sravalli Kodipalli. 2026. “Mechanical Comparison of Graphene With Polyetheretherketone and Titanium for Dental Implant Applications”. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 29 (3): 471-76. https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1903706.

EndNote

Sri IK, Basany R, Bindhu Sree C, Satyavathi B, Kodipalli S (September 1, 2026) Mechanical Comparison of Graphene with Polyetheretherketone and Titanium for Dental Implant Applications. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 29 3 471–476.

IEEE

[1]I. K. Sri, R. Basany, C. Bindhu Sree, B. Satyavathi, and S. Kodipalli, “Mechanical Comparison of Graphene with Polyetheretherketone and Titanium for Dental Implant Applications”, Cumhuriyet Dent J, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 471–476, Sept. 2026, doi: 10.7126/cumudj.1903706.

ISNAD

Sri, Ireddy Kavya - Basany, Ram - Bindhu Sree, Chikkam - Satyavathi, Badugu - Kodipalli, Sravalli. “Mechanical Comparison of Graphene With Polyetheretherketone and Titanium for Dental Implant Applications”. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 29/3 (September 1, 2026): 471-476. https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1903706.

JAMA

1.Sri IK, Basany R, Bindhu Sree C, Satyavathi B, Kodipalli S. Mechanical Comparison of Graphene with Polyetheretherketone and Titanium for Dental Implant Applications. Cumhuriyet Dent J. 2026;29:471–476.

MLA

Sri, Ireddy Kavya, et al. “Mechanical Comparison of Graphene With Polyetheretherketone and Titanium for Dental Implant Applications”. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal, vol. 29, no. 3, Sept. 2026, pp. 471-6, doi:10.7126/cumudj.1903706.

Vancouver

1.Ireddy Kavya Sri, Ram Basany, Chikkam Bindhu Sree, Badugu Satyavathi, Sravalli Kodipalli. Mechanical Comparison of Graphene with Polyetheretherketone and Titanium for Dental Implant Applications. Cumhuriyet Dent J. 2026 Sep. 1;29(3):471-6. doi:10.7126/cumudj.1903706