Dental and medical problems · 2025
Comparison of shear bond strength of different indirect composites to new generation polyetheretherketone materials.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Seferli Zıya, Degirmenci Kubra, Saridag Serkan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The bond stability between polyetheretherketone (PEEK) materials and composites is a novel concern, and evidence regarding bond strength is limited. To date, no study has comprehensively evaluated the effect of different surface treatments, adhesive agents and composite materials on the shear bond strength (SBS) of various PEEK materials.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the SBS between 2 PEEK materials and different indirect composites applied after the application of various surface pre-treatment methods and adhesives.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 328 PEEK specimens (JUVORA™ (unfilled PEEK material, n = 164); BioHPP (compound containing 20% nanoceramic-filled PEEK, n = 164)) were divided into 4 groups according to the applied surface treatment: no treatment; air abrasion; acid etching; and acid etching + air abrasion. Subsequently, all specimens were conditioned with visio.link (VL) or Single Bond Universal (SBU). The specimens were veneered with crea.lign composite (CR) or SR Nexco composite (SR), and the bond strength values were measured. The co-variance analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to analyze the data (α = 0.003).
RESULTS: The SBS values for BioHPP specimens were significantly higher than the values for JUVORA™ specimens in the no treatment group (p < 0.001). The highest SBS values were detected between BioHPP and SR (22.54 ±1.22 MPa), and between JUVORA™ and SR (21.45 ±1.43 MPa) after acid etching and conditioning with VL (p < 0.001). The surface treatments, composites and adhesives affected the SBS between the composites and PEEK materials.
CONCLUSIONS: Following air abrasion or acid etching of surfaces, conditioning with VL and aesthetic veneering with SR may be a more reliable clinical application than other surface treatments and adhesivecomposite combinations for PEEK.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the SBS between 2 PEEK materials and different indirect composites applied after the application of various surface pre-treatment methods and adhesives.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 328 PEEK specimens (JUVORA™ (unfilled PEEK material, n = 164); BioHPP (compound containing 20% nanoceramic-filled PEEK, n = 164)) were divided into 4 groups according to the applied surface treatment: no treatment; air abrasion; acid etching; and acid etching + air abrasion. Subsequently, all specimens were conditioned with visio.link (VL) or Single Bond Universal (SBU). The specimens were veneered with crea.lign composite (CR) or SR Nexco composite (SR), and the bond strength values were measured. The co-variance analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to analyze the data (α = 0.003).
RESULTS: The SBS values for BioHPP specimens were significantly higher than the values for JUVORA™ specimens in the no treatment group (p < 0.001). The highest SBS values were detected between BioHPP and SR (22.54 ±1.22 MPa), and between JUVORA™ and SR (21.45 ±1.43 MPa) after acid etching and conditioning with VL (p < 0.001). The surface treatments, composites and adhesives affected the SBS between the composites and PEEK materials.
CONCLUSIONS: Following air abrasion or acid etching of surfaces, conditioning with VL and aesthetic veneering with SR may be a more reliable clinical application than other surface treatments and adhesivecomposite combinations for PEEK.