PURPOSE: To test the impact of mechanical and chemical treatments of PEEK on surface roughness (SR), surface free energy (SFE), and tensile bond strength (TBS) to veneering resin composites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PEEK specimens (N = 680) were fabricated and divided into treatment groups (n = 170/group): 1. air abrasion (AIA); 2. etching with piranha solution (PIS); 3. air abrasion + piranha acid etching (AIP); and 4. no treatment (NO). Ten specimens of each treatment group were assessed with a contact angle measuring device and profilometer to determine SFE and SR, respectively. The remaining 160 specimens of each group were divided into subgroups according to coupling method (n = 32/subgroup): 1. Monobond Plus/ Heliobond (MH); 2. Visio.link (VL); 3. Clearfil Ceramic Primer (CCP); 4. Signum PEEK Bond (SPB); and 5. control, no coupling (CG). Specimens were veneered using Signum Composite/SiCo or Signum Ceramis/SiCe (both: n = 16), incubated in water (60 days at 37°C) and thermocycled (5000 cycles of 5°C/55°C). TBS was measured and data analyzed by three- and one-way ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: A significant effect of surface treatment (p < 0.001) and coupling agent application (p < 0.001) on TBS was observed. AIA specimens with/without PIS showed the highest SFE, SR, and TBS. No differences were measured between PIS and NO, and between AIA and AIP. When no coupling agent was used, no adhesion was obtained. CCP resulted in low adhesion values, whereas MH, SPB, and VL exhibited increased TBS. No significant impact of the veneering resin composite on TBS was found (p = 0.424). CONCLUSION: AIA and AIP combined with VL, SPB, and MH can be recommended for clinical use.
PURPOSE: To test the impact of mechanical and chemical treatments of PEEK on surface roughness (SR), surface free energy (SFE), and tensile bond strength (TBS) to veneering resin composites. MATERIALS AND METHODS:PEEK specimens (N = 680) were fabricated and divided into treatment groups (n = 170/group): 1. air abrasion (AIA); 2. etching with piranha solution (PIS); 3. air abrasion + piranha acid etching (AIP); and 4. no treatment (NO). Ten specimens of each treatment group were assessed with a contact angle measuring device and profilometer to determine SFE and SR, respectively. The remaining 160 specimens of each group were divided into subgroups according to coupling method (n = 32/subgroup): 1. Monobond Plus/ Heliobond (MH); 2. Visio.link (VL); 3. Clearfil Ceramic Primer (CCP); 4. Signum PEEK Bond (SPB); and 5. control, no coupling (CG). Specimens were veneered using Signum Composite/SiCo or Signum Ceramis/SiCe (both: n = 16), incubated in water (60 days at 37°C) and thermocycled (5000 cycles of 5°C/55°C). TBS was measured and data analyzed by three- and one-way ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: A significant effect of surface treatment (p < 0.001) and coupling agent application (p < 0.001) on TBS was observed. AIA specimens with/without PIS showed the highest SFE, SR, and TBS. No differences were measured between PIS and NO, and between AIA and AIP. When no coupling agent was used, no adhesion was obtained. CCP resulted in low adhesion values, whereas MH, SPB, and VL exhibited increased TBS. No significant impact of the veneering resin composite on TBS was found (p = 0.424). CONCLUSION:AIA and AIP combined with VL, SPB, and MH can be recommended for clinical use.