Effect of Different Cleaning Methods of Polyetheretherketone on Surface Roughness and Surface Free Energy Properties

Purpose To determine the effect of different individual, laboratory and professional cleaning methods on the surface-roughness (SR) and surface free energy (SFE) of polyetheretherketone (PEEK), PMMA-based (PMMA) and composite (COMP) materials. Methods 330 specimens of PEEK, PMMA and COMP (N = 990) were prepared and divided into the following cleaning protocols (n = 30/group): (i) individual prophylaxis using (ST) soft, (MT) medium-hard and (SOT) sonic toothbrushes, (ii) in-lab cleaning protocols consisting of (SY) Sympro cleaning system, (SS) SunSparkle, (UB) ultrasonic bath and (AP) Al ₂ O ₃ -powder device and (iii) professional prophylaxis applying (PS) Perio Soft-Scaler, (SO) Sonicsys, (AFC) Air Flow Comfort, and (AFP) Air Flow Plus. After each protocol SR (profilometer), SFE (contact angle devise) and surface topography (SEM) were measured. Data were analyzed using multivariate analysis, Kruskal-Wallis-H- and Mann-Whitney- U-test (p<0.05). Results No impact of material on SR was observed (p = 0.443). Cleaning using conventional air-abrasion and powders (AP), followed by AFC produced higher SR values than the remaining methods (p<0.001). Within SFE, the cleaning method exerted the highest influence on SFE values (p<0.001, ηP ² = 0.246), closely followed by the polymer material (p<0.001, ηP ² = 0.136). PMMA and PEEK presented after cleaning lower SFE than COMP. PS, UB and SO showed lower SFE than specimens cleaned using SS, ST and SY. Cleaning using SY led to the highest SFE. Conclusions With regard to SR, all methods – with exception of conventional air-abrasion – can be recommended to clean PEEK. According to the SFE, PEEK may be an acceptable material providing even lower plaque accumulation rates than COMP. The field for more research is now open for scrutiny.