Bond strength of lithium disilicate to polyetheretherketone

Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength and Failure Modes of Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Veneering Material to Different High-Performance Polymers

This study assessed the shear bond strength (SBS) and failure modes of lithium disilicate ceramic veneering material to different high-performance polymers. Thirty-six square specimens measuring 7 × 7 × 2 ± 0.05 mm were prepared from pure polyetheretherketone (PEEK), Bio-high performance PEEK (BioHPP) and Trilor discs. Polymer specimens were air-borne abraded utilizing aluminum oxide particles, cleaned, and a bonding agent was applied (visio. link). The veneering LDC material (3 × 2 mm) was milled, hydrofluoric acid etched (9.5%) and primed (Clearfil ceramic). The LDC was bonded to the polymer specimens using dual-cured resin cement (Panavia V5) and light polymerized. The bonded specimens were subjected to 5000 cycles of physiological aging by thermocycling, and the SBS test was performed in a universal testing machine at 0.5 mm/min cross-head speed. The debonded specimens were analyzed to determine the primary bond failure sites (adhesive, mixed or cohesive). Data analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and a post hoc Tukey test (α ≤ 0.05). The BioHPP material demonstrated the highest SBS values (23.94 ± 1.43 MPa), and the Trilor group recorded the lowest SBS values (17.09 ± 1.07 MPa). The PEEK group showed a mean SBS of 21.21 ± 1.51 MPa. The SBS comparison showed significant variations across all material groups (p < 0.001). Regarding failure modes, adhesive failure was observed in 40% of BioHPP and PEEK specimens and 90% of Trilor specimens. The cohesive failure occurred in 50% of PEEK and 30% of BioHPP specimens, while the Trilor specimens showed no cohesive failure. Mixed failures were reported in 30% of BioHPP and 10% of PEEK and Trilor specimens. The BioHPP material demonstrated high SBS followed by PEEK and Trilor. The SBS between the tested materials was statistically significant. However, the SBS of the tested implant framework materials was above the limit stipulated by the ISO 10477 standard (5 MPa) and the clinically acceptable range of 10-12 MPa.

Effect of surface treatment and resin cement type on the bond strength of polyetheretherketone to lithium disilicate ceramic

BACKGROUND

This study aims to evaluate the effect of surface treatment and resin cement on the shear bond strength (SBS) and mode of failure of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) to lithium disilicate ceramic (LDC). This is suggested to study alternative veneering of PEEK frameworks with a ceramic material.

METHODS

eighty discs were prepared from PEEK blank and from lithium disilicate ceramic. Samples were divided into four groups according to surface treatment: Group (A) air abraded with 110 μm Al2O3, Group (AP) air abrasion and primer application, Group (S) 98% sulfuric acid etching for 60 s, Group (SP) Sulfuric acid and primer. Each group was subdivided into two subgroups based on resin cement type used for bonding LDC:1) subgroup (L) self- adhesive resin cement and 2) subgroup (B) conventional resin cement (n = 10). Thermocycling was done for all samples. The bond strength was assessed using the shear bond strength test (SBS). Failure mode analysis was done at 50X magnification with a stereomicroscope. Samples were chosen from each group for scanning electron microscope (SEM). The three-way nested ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test were used for statistical analysis of results. Comparisons of effects were done utilizing one way ANOVA and (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

The highest mean of shear bond strength values was demonstrated in Group of air abrasion with primer application using conventional resin cement (APB) (12.21 ± 2.14 MPa). Sulfuric acid groups showed lower shear bond strength values and the majority failed in thermocycling especially when no primer was applied. The failure mode analysis showed that the predominant failure type was adhesive failure between cement and PEEK, while the remaining was mixed failure between cement and PEEK.

CONCLUSION

The air abrasion followed by primer application and conventional resin cement used for bonding Lithium Disilicate to PEEK achieved the best bond strength. Primer application did not have an effect when self-adhesive resin cement was used in air-abraded groups. Priming step is mandatory whenever sulfuric acid etching surface treatment is utilized for PEEK.

Comparison of the shear bond strengths of two different polyetheretherketone (PEEK) framework materials and CAD-CAM veneer materials

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the shear bond strength (SBS) of two different polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and CAD-CAM materials after aging.

METHODS

A total of 42 frameworks were designed and milled from 2 different PEEK discs (Copra Peek, P and BioHPP, B). P and B frameworks were divided into 3 subgroups (n = 7). 14 slices were prepared each from feldspathic ceramic (Vitablocs Mark II, VM), hybrid nanoceramic (Cerasmart, CS), and polymer-infiltrated ceramic (Vita Enamic, VE) blocks. After surface preparations, the slices were cemented to P and B surfaces. The samples were subjected to thermal aging (5000 cycles). SBS of all the samples was measured. Fractured surfaces were examined by SEM/EDX analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk, Two-way Robust ANOVA and Bonferroni correction tests were used to analyze the data (a = .05).

RESULTS

Frameworks, ceramics, and frameworks x ceramics had significant differences (p < 0.05). The highest SBS value was seen in B-VM (p < 0.05). VM offered the highest SBS with both P and B. The differences between P-VM, P-CS, P-VE and B-CS and B-VE were insignificant (p > 0.05). According to EDX analysis, ytterbium and fluorine was seen in B content, unlike P. While VM and CS contained fluorine, barium, and aluminum; sodium and aluminum were observed in the VE structure.

CONCLUSION

Bonding of P and B with VM offers higher SBS. VM, CS and VE did not make any difference in SBS for P, however VM showed a significant difference for B.

The All-on-4 Concept Using Polyetheretherketone (PEEK)-Acrylic Resin Prostheses: Follow-Up Results of the Development Group at 5 Years and the Routine Group at One Year

BACKGROUND

It is necessary to investigate the application of polymer materials in implant dentistry. The aim of this study was to examine the outcome of full-arch polyetheretherketone (PEEK)-acrylic resin implant-supported prostheses.

METHODS

Seventy-six patients were rehabilitated consecutively with 100 full-arch implant-supported prostheses of PEEK-acrylic resin (a development group (DG): 37 patients with 5 years of follow-up; a routine group (RG): 39 patients with 1 year of follow-up). The primary outcome measure was prosthetic survival. Secondary outcome measures were implant survival, marginal bone loss, biological complications, prosthetic complications, veneer adhesion, plaque levels, bleeding levels, and a patient subjective evaluation (including the Oral Health Impact Profile for the RG).

RESULTS

In both groups, prosthetic (DG: 93.6%; RG: 100%) and implant survival (DG: 98.9%; RG: 99.5%) were high, and marginal bone loss was low (DG: 0.54 mm; RG: 0.28 mm). The veneer adhesion rate was 28.6% of prostheses in DG (RG = 0%). Mechanical complications occurred in 49% and 11.8% of prostheses in DG and RG, respectively. Biological complications, plaque, and bleeding levels were low in both groups. The subjective patient evaluation was excellent in both groups (8.6 < DG < 8.8; 9.3 < RG < 9.5; OHIP = 1.38).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, PEEK can be considered a viable prosthetic alternative.