Shear bond strength of veneering composite to high performance polymers
Source abstract
Abstract
High performance polymers like PEEK (polyetheretherketone) and FRC (fiberreinforced composite) could substitute metallic alloys for removable partial dentures. However, these polymers require aesthetic veneering. This study was to determine the bond strength to direct composite. Specimens made of PEEK and FRC were produced and air-abraded (50 μm aluminum-oxide). Specimens were allocated to four experimental groups: Luxatemp Glaze & Bond, Scotchbond Universal, SR Nexco Connect and iBond Universal. Specimens were divided into three subgroups for short-term, long-term and no artificial aging and shear bond strength (SBS) was evaluated. SBS of specimens made of PEEK with no artificial aging showed values between 10.79-14.00 MPa, short-term artificial aging resulted in values between 3.78-13.85 MPa and after long-term artificial aging SBS decreased to 0-8.75 MPa. SBS measurement of FRC specimens resulted in values between 9.83-12.1 MPa without aging, after short-term artificial aging values decreased to 8.36-11.98 MPa and after long-term aging SBS showed a degradation to 4.52-7.82 MPa.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University
Department of Biological and Material Sciences in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University
References (43)
Show source-provided references
1. 1) Sailer I, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CH. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal–ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part II: fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18: 86-96.10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01468.x ↗
2. 2) Sailer I, Makarov NA, Thoma DS, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE. All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: Single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater 2015; 31: 603-623.10.1016/j.dental.2015.02.011 ↗
3. 3) Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP s) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 22-38.10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02546.x ↗
4. 4) Kern M, Sasse M, Wolfart S. Ten-year outcome of three-unit fixed dental prostheses made from monolithic lithium disilicate ceramic. JADA 2012; 143: 234-240.10.14219/jada.archive.2012.0147 ↗
5. 5) Priest G, Priest J. Promoting esthetic procedures in the prosthodontic practice. J Prosthodont 2004; 13: 111-117.10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04017.x ↗
6. 6) Kappert H, Eichner K. Zahnärztliche Werkstoffe und ihre Verarbeitung, Bd. 2. Werkstoffe unter klinischen Aspekten, Kap. Unerwünschte biologische Nebenwirkungen. Thieme; 2008.10.1055/b-0041-181829 ↗
7. 7) Katzer A, Marquardt H, Westendorf J, Wening J, Von Foerster G. Polyetheretherketone —cytotoxicity and mutagenicity in vitro. Biomaterials 2002; 23: 1749-1759.10.1016/S0142-9612(01)00300-3 ↗
8. 8) Morrison C, Macnair R, MacDonald C, Wykman A, Goldie I, Grant M. In vitro biocompatibility testing of polymers for orthopaedic implants using cultured fibroblasts and osteoblasts. Biomaterials 1995; 16: 987-992.10.1016/0142-9612(95)94906-2 ↗
9. 9) Barkarmo S, Andersson M, Currie F, Kjellin P, Jimbo R, Johansson CB, et al. Enhanced bone healing around nanohydroxyapatite-coated polyetheretherketone implants: An experimental study in rabbit bone. J Biomater Appl 2014; 29: 737-747.10.1177/0885328214542854 ↗
10. 10) Rivard CH, Rhalmi S, Coillard C. In vivo biocompatibility testing of peek polymer for a spinal implant system: a study in rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res A 2002; 62: 488-498.10.1002/jbm.10159 ↗
11. 11) Schmidlin PR, Stawarczyk B, Wieland M, Attin T, Hämmerle CH, Fischer J. Effect of different surface pre-treatments and luting materials on shear bond strength to PEEK. Dent Mater 2010; 26: 553-559.10.1016/j.dental.2010.02.003 ↗
12. 12) Panayotov IV, Orti V, Cuisinier F, Yachouh J. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for medical applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2016; 27: 118.10.1007/s10856-016-5731-4 ↗
13. 13) Schwitalla AD, Abou-Emara M, Spintig T, Lackmann J, Müller WD. Finite element analysis of the biomechanical effects of PEEK dental implants on the peri-implant bone. J Biomech 2015; 48: 1-7.10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.11.017 ↗
14. 14) Schwitalla A, Müller WD. PEEK dental implants: a review of the literature. J Oral Implantol 2013; 39: 743-749.10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00002 ↗
15. 15) Nalla RK, Kruzic JJ, Kinney JH, Ritchie RO. Effect of aging on the toughness of human cortical bone: evaluation by R-curves. Bone 2004; 35: 1240-1246.10.1016/j.bone.2004.07.016 ↗
16. 16) Hallmann L, Mehl A, Sereno N, Hämmerle CH. The improvement of adhesive properties of PEEK through different pre-treatments. Appl Surf Sci 2012; 258: 7213-7218.10.1016/j.apsusc.2012.04.040 ↗
17. 17) Luemkemann N, Strickstrock M, Eichberger M, Zylla IM, Stawarczyk B. Impact of air-abrasion pressure and adhesive systems on bonding parameters for polyetheretherketone dental restorations. Int J Adhes Adhes 2018; 80: 30-38.10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2017.10.002 ↗
18. 18) Silthampitag P, Chaijareenont P, Tattakorn K, Banjongprasert C, Takahashi H, Arksornnukit M. Effect of surface pretreatments on resin composite bonding to PEEK. Dent Mater J 2016; 35: 668-674.10.4012/dmj.2015-349 ↗
19. 19) Stawarczyk B, Beuer F, Wimmer T, Jahn D, Sener B, Roos M, et al. Polyetheretherketone—a suitable material for fixed dental prostheses? J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2013; 101: 1209-1216.10.1002/jbm.b.32932 ↗
20. 20) Stawarczyk B, Jordan P, Schmidlin PR, Roos M, Eichberger M, Gernet W, et al. PEEK surface treatment effects on tensile bond strength to veneering resins. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 1278-1288.10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.014 ↗
21. 21) Sproesser O, Schmidlin PR, Uhrenbacher J, Eichberger M, Roos M, Stawarczyk B. Work of adhesion between resin composite cements and PEEK as a function of etching duration with sulfuric acid and its correlation with bond strength values. Int J Adhes Adhes 2014; 54: 184-190.10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2014.06.006 ↗
22. 22) Keul C, Liebermann A, Schmidlin PR, Roos M, Sener B, Stawarczyk B. Influence of PEEK surface modification on surface properties and bond strength to veneering resin composites. J Adhes Dent 2014; 16: 383-392.
23. 23) Kern M, Lehmann F. Influence of surface conditioning on bonding to polyetheretherketon (PEEK). Dent Mater 2012; 28: 1280-1283.10.1016/j.dental.2012.09.010 ↗
24. 24) Stawarczyk B, Bähr N, Beuer F, Wimmer T, Eichberger M, Gernet W, et al. Influence of plasma pretreatment on shear bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to polyetheretherketone. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18: 163-170.10.1007/s00784-013-0966-7 ↗
25. 25) Lee KS, Shin MS, Lee JY, Ryu JJ, Shin SW. Shear bond strength of composite resin to high performance polymer PEKK according to surface treatments and bonding materials. J Adv Prosthodont 2017; 9: 350-357.10.4047/jap.2017.9.5.350 ↗
26. 26) Tetelman ED, Babbush CA. A new transitional abutment for immediate aesthetics and function. Implant Dent 2008; 17: 51-58.10.1097/ID.0b013e318167648c ↗
27. 27) Zoidis P, Papathanasiou I, Polyzois G. The use of a modified poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) as an alternative framework material for removable dental prostheses. A Clinical Report. J Prosthodont 2016; 25: 580-584.10.1111/jopr.12325 ↗
28. 28) Costa-Palau S, Torrents-Nicolas J, Brufau-de Barberà M, Cabratosa-Termes J. Use of polyetheretherketone in the fabrication of a maxillary obturator prosthesis: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 680-682.10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.10.026 ↗
29. 29) Basaran EG, Ayna E, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV. Load bearing capacity of fiber-reinforced and unreinforced composite resin CAD/CAM-fabricated fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 109: 88-94.10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60022-0 ↗
30. 30) Barbero EJ. Introduction to composite materials design: CRC press; 2017.
31. 31) John J, Gangadhar SA, Shah I. Flexural strength of heat-polymerized polymethyl methacrylate denture resin reinforced with glass, aramid, or nylon fibers. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86: 424-427.10.1067/mpr.2001.118564 ↗
32. 32) Fajardo RS, Pruitt LA, Finzen FC, Marshall GW, Singh S, Curtis DA. The effect of E-glass fibers and acrylic resin thickness on fracture load in a simulated implant-supported overdenture prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2011; 106: 373-377.10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60150-9 ↗
33. 33) El Ghoul WA, Özcan M, Ounsi H, Tohme H, Salameh Z. Effect of different CAD-CAM materials on the marginal and internal adaptation of endocrown restorations: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 123: 128-134.10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.024 ↗
34. 34) Bonfante EA, Suzuki M, Carvalho RM, Hirata R, Lubelski W, Bonfante G, et al. Digitally produced fiber-reinforced composite substructures for three-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30: 321-329.10.11607/jomi.3892 ↗
35. 35) Ruschel GH, Gomes EA, Silva-Sousa YT, Pinelli RGP, Sousa-Neto MD, Pereira GKR, et al. Mechanical properties and superficial characterization of a milled CAD-CAM glass fiber post. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2018; 82: 187-192.10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.03.035 ↗
36. 36) Wegner SM, Gerdes W, Kern M. Effect of different artificial aging conditions on ceramic-composite bond strength. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 15: 267-272.
37. 37) Heikkinen T, Matinlinna J, Vallittu P, Lassila L. Long term water storage deteriorates bonding of composite resin to alumina and zirconia short communication. Open Dent J 2013; 7: 123-125.10.2174/1874210601307010123 ↗
38. 38) Armstrong S, Geraldeli S, Maia R, Raposo LH, Soares CJ, Yamagawa J. Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of “micro” bond strength test methods. Dent Mater 2010; 26: e50-62.10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.155 ↗
39. 39) Tsuka H, Morita K, Kato K, Kawano H, Abekura H, Tsuga K. Evaluation of shear bond strength between PEEK and resin-based luting material. J Oral Biosci 2017; 59: 231-236.10.1016/j.job.2017.09.003 ↗
40. 40) Matsumura H, Yanagida H, Tanoue N, Atsuta M, Shimoe S. Shear bond strength of resin composite veneering material to gold alloy with varying metal surface preparations. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86: 315-319.10.1067/mpr.2001.114823 ↗
41. 41) Jakob E, Marx R. Silanisierung der Klebebrückenflügel. Zahnärztl Praxis 1988; 17: 124.
42. 42) Morneburg TR, Pröschel PA. In vivo forces on implants influenced by occlusal scheme and food consistency. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 16: 481-486.
43. 43) Tsuchimoto Y, Yoshida Y, Mine A, Nakamura M, Nishiyama N, Van Meerbeek B, et al. Effect of 4-MET-and 10-MDP-based primers on resin bonding to titanium. Dent Mater J 2006; 25: 120-124.10.4012/dmj.25.120 ↗