Julia Uhrenbacher1, Patrick R Schmidlin2, Christine Keul3, Marlis Eichberger4, Malgorzata Roos5, Wolfgang Gernet6, Bogna Stawarczyk7. 1. Student, Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 2. Professor and Head of Periodontology, Clinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Munich Dental School, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany. 4. Dental Technician, Department of Prosthodontics, Munich Dental School, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany. 5. Senior Statistician, Division of Biostatistics, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 6. Chairman, Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 7. Senior Materials Scientist, Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany. Electronic address: bogna.stawarczyk@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The mechanical properties of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) make it an ideal material for fixed dental prostheses; however, insufficient information is available about the cementation of these restorations. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the retention strength of differently pretreated and conditioned PEEK crowns luted to dental abutments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Human teeth were prepared in a standardized manner, and PEEK crowns were milled (N=160, n=10 per group) and conditioned as follows: airborne-particle abrasion, sulfuric etching, piranha etching, and no conditioning. These groups were divided into adhesive systems: visio.link, Signum PEEK Bond, Ambarino P60, and no adhesive and luted to dentin abutments. After water storage (60 days) and thermocycling (5000 cycles, 5°C/55°C), the retention strength of the crowns was determined with a pull-off test, and failure types were classified. The data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis, 1-way ANOVA, and χ(2) test (α=.05). RESULTS: Crowns that were unconditioned and piranha etched and/or adhesively untreated or pretreated with Ambarino P60 had the lowest retention strength. The highest values were found for the airborne-particle abrasion and sulfuric etched groups and/or crowns adhesively pretreated with Signum PEEK Bond and visio.link. Composite resin cement that remained on dentin was observed more frequently for unconditioned groups in combination with Ambarino P60 and no adhesive pretreatment. Mixed failure types were found more frequently in the airborne-particle abrasion group in combination with visio.link, Signum PEEK Bond, and no adhesive pretreatment, in the sulfuric acid etched group combined with Ambarino P60 and no adhesive pretreatment, and after the piranha acid pretreatment in combination with visio.link or Signum PEEK Bond. CONCLUSIONS: The adhesion of the tested PEEK crowns to dentin was satisfactory after treatment with airborne-particle abrasion or etching with sulfuric acid and/or when additional adhesive systems such as visio.link or Signum PEEK Bond were used.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The mechanical properties of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) make it an ideal material for fixed dental prostheses; however, insufficient information is available about the cementation of these restorations. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the retention strength of differently pretreated and conditioned PEEK crowns luted to dental abutments. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Human teeth were prepared in a standardized manner, and PEEK crowns were milled (N=160, n=10 per group) and conditioned as follows: airborne-particle abrasion, sulfuric etching, piranha etching, and no conditioning. These groups were divided into adhesive systems: visio.link, Signum PEEK Bond, Ambarino P60, and no adhesive and luted to dentin abutments. After water storage (60 days) and thermocycling (5000 cycles, 5°C/55°C), the retention strength of the crowns was determined with a pull-off test, and failure types were classified. The data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis, 1-way ANOVA, and χ(2) test (α=.05). RESULTS: Crowns that were unconditioned and piranha etched and/or adhesively untreated or pretreated with Ambarino P60 had the lowest retention strength. The highest values were found for the airborne-particle abrasion and sulfuric etched groups and/or crowns adhesively pretreated with Signum PEEK Bond and visio.link. Composite resin cement that remained on dentin was observed more frequently for unconditioned groups in combination with Ambarino P60 and no adhesive pretreatment. Mixed failure types were found more frequently in the airborne-particle abrasion group in combination with visio.link, Signum PEEK Bond, and no adhesive pretreatment, in the sulfuric acid etched group combined with Ambarino P60 and no adhesive pretreatment, and after the piranha acid pretreatment in combination with visio.link or Signum PEEK Bond. CONCLUSIONS: The adhesion of the tested PEEK crowns to dentin was satisfactory after treatment with airborne-particle abrasion or etching with sulfuric acid and/or when additional adhesive systems such as visio.link or Signum PEEK Bond were used.