OBJECTIVES: This study aims to test the influence of different surface treatments and conditioning on the shear bond strength between polyetherketone (PEEK) and composite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surfaces (570 plates) were used untreated, etched, air-particle abraded or activated with silica-modified alumina oxide. Surface roughness was determined after different treatments. Cylinders of composite were polymerized onto the surfaces. Eighteen different pre-treatment combinations were applied, partly combined with opaque application. Shear bond strength (SBS) was determined following ISO TR 11405. Baseline tests were performed 24 h after composite polymerization. For investigating the influence of storage and aging, the specimens were either stored in distilled water (37 °C, 90 days) or thermally cycled (12,000 cycles 5 °C/55 °C, distilled water). Means and standard deviations were calculated (statistics: one-way ANOVA/Bonferroni (α = 0.05)). RESULTS: Surface roughness varied between 0.04 ± 0.01 and 6.76 ± 1.11 μm. Only etching caused a significant (p < 0.001) increase. SBS strongly varied between 0.0 ± 0.0 and 23.2 ± 2.1 MPa. After thermal cycling (TC), nine of the investigated systems showed SBS higher than 5 MPa, varying from 8.8 ± 2.7 MPa (#7) to 19.4 ± 2.5 MPa (#4). After water storage, nine systems provided SBS higher than 5 MPa, seven even values higher than 10 MPa. Maximum SBS was 27.1 ± 3.1 MPa (#2) and lowest value was 5.4 ± 2.6 MPa (#4). Significant (p < 0.001) differences were found between the individual systems after 24 h, TC and after 90 days storage. CONCLUSIONS: For good bonding between PEEK and composite, cleaning and roughening is recommended. Surface conditioning prior to bonding seems essential. Combination with opaque revealed an increase in SBS. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Successful bonding on PEEK surfaces can be achieved by surface roughening and subsequent surface activation with acetone- or phosphate-based methacrylate primers or tribochemical treatment.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to test the influence of different surface treatments and conditioning on the shear bond strength between polyetherketone (PEEK) and composite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surfaces (570 plates) were used untreated, etched, air-particle abraded or activated with silica-modified alumina oxide. Surface roughness was determined after different treatments. Cylinders of composite were polymerized onto the surfaces. Eighteen different pre-treatment combinations were applied, partly combined with opaque application. Shear bond strength (SBS) was determined following ISO TR 11405. Baseline tests were performed 24 h after composite polymerization. For investigating the influence of storage and aging, the specimens were either stored in distilled water (37 °C, 90 days) or thermally cycled (12,000 cycles 5 °C/55 °C, distilled water). Means and standard deviations were calculated (statistics: one-way ANOVA/Bonferroni (α = 0.05)). RESULTS: Surface roughness varied between 0.04 ± 0.01 and 6.76 ± 1.11 μm. Only etching caused a significant (p < 0.001) increase. SBS strongly varied between 0.0 ± 0.0 and 23.2 ± 2.1 MPa. After thermal cycling (TC), nine of the investigated systems showed SBS higher than 5 MPa, varying from 8.8 ± 2.7 MPa (#7) to 19.4 ± 2.5 MPa (#4). After water storage, nine systems provided SBS higher than 5 MPa, seven even values higher than 10 MPa. Maximum SBS was 27.1 ± 3.1 MPa (#2) and lowest value was 5.4 ± 2.6 MPa (#4). Significant (p < 0.001) differences were found between the individual systems after 24 h, TC and after 90 days storage. CONCLUSIONS: For good bonding between PEEK and composite, cleaning and roughening is recommended. Surface conditioning prior to bonding seems essential. Combination with opaque revealed an increase in SBS. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Successful bonding on PEEK surfaces can be achieved by surface roughening and subsequent surface activation with acetone- or phosphate-based methacrylate primers or tribochemical treatment.
Authors: Michael Behr; Peter Proff; Carola Kolbeck; Sabine Langrieger; Johannes Kunze; Gerhard Handel; Martin Rosentritt Journal: J Mech Behav Biomed Mater Date: 2010-08-27
Authors: Hendrik Jacob Santing; Henny J A Meijer; Gerry M Raghoebar; Mutlu Özcan Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 3.932
Authors: B Stawarczyk; N Bähr; F Beuer; T Wimmer; M Eichberger; W Gernet; D Jahn; P R Schmidlin Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2013-03-17 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Hasan Sarfaraz; Mohammed N Rasheed; Sanath K Shetty; Uma M Prabhu; Kevin Fernandes; Smrithi Mohandas Journal: J Pharm Bioallied Sci Date: 2020-08-28
Authors: José María Parmigiani-Izquierdo; María Eugenia Cabaña-Muñoz; José Joaquín Merino; Arturo Sánchez-Pérez Journal: Int J Implant Dent Date: 2017-02-20