ai_agent_IP

ai_agent

maintenance

instantTrialDurationMinutes

isBiopharma

enableNewMyJoveSectionDesign

educationFeatures

seoMetaApi

ai_copilot_institution_blacklist

ai_chat_institution_blacklist

freeAccessWindow

ssoRoleCapture

scheduledMaintenanceBanner

joveLabsFeatures

disable_autoplay_for_bots

extended_trial_duration

5 minutes

This in vitro. protocol follows institutional guidelines for laboratory-based dental research. Ethical approval was not required because no human participants or animal tissues were involved. All the materials used in this study are described in the Table of Materials.
1. Preparation of PEEK specimens 
<ol>
	<li>Fabricate 240 disc-shaped polyetheretherketone (PEEK) specimens with a diameter of 8 mm and a thickness of 3 mm from commercially available PEEK rods using a precision cutting device under standardized laboratory conditions (Figure 1A&#8211;C).</li>
	<li>Mark one surface of each specimen using a permanent marker to distinguish the non-bonding side. Designate the unmarked surface as the bonding surface for all subsequent procedures.</li>
	<li>Polish the bonding surface of each specimen using 600-grit silicon carbide abrasive paper under continuous water cooling.</li>
	<li>Clean all specimens ultrasonically in distilled water for 10 min.</li>
	<li>Air-dry all specimens thoroughly before surface treatment.</li>
</ol>
2. Surface treatment of PEEK 
CAUTION: Handle sulfuric acid in a chemical fume hood while wearing appropriate personal protective equipment28.
<ol>
	<li>Randomly divide the specimens into four groups according to the surface treatment protocol: untreated control, sandblasting, sulfuric acid etching, and laser irradiation (Figure 2A&#8211;D).</li>
	<li>For the control group, rinse the specimens with deionized water for 1 min and air-dry for 10 s.</li>
	<li>For the sandblasting group, abrade the bonding surface using 110 &#181;m aluminum oxide particles at 2 bar pressure for 10 s, maintaining a distance of 10 mm and an application angle of 45&#176;. Ensure consistent application by maintaining identical distance and angulation for all specimens15,16.</li>
	<li>For the acid-etching group, apply 98% sulfuric acid to the bonding surface for 60 s13.</li>
	<li>For the laser group, irradiate the surface using an erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser with a wavelength of 2,940 nm, pulse energy of 150 mJ, repetition rate of 10 Hz, and average power of 1.5 W in QSP mode23.</li>
	<li>Use a non-contact handpiece with a spot size of 0.9 mm and position the laser beam perpendicular to the specimen surface at a distance of 10 mm. Apply the laser in a scanning motion across the surface and perform a single pass per specimen to ensure uniform energy distribution.</li>
	<li>Rinse all specimens with deionized water for 1 min to remove surface residues.</li>
	<li>Air-dry all specimens for 10 s.</li>
</ol>
3. Surface analysis by atomic force microscopy
<ol>
	<li>Randomly select 60 PEEK specimens (n = 15 per surface treatment group) for surface analysis.</li>
	<li>Perform atomic force microscopy (AFM) in tapping mode under dry conditions to evaluate surface topography (Figure 3A&#8211;D).</li>
	<li>Use a silicon (Si) probe tip for all measurements and operate the device according to the manufacturer&#8217;s standard calibration procedure.</li>
	<li>Position each specimen beneath the cantilever and acquire three-dimensional surface images over a scanning area of 10 &#181;m &#215; 10 &#181;m.</li>
	<li>Perform three measurements at different locations on each specimen to minimize local surface variability and calculate mean roughness values.</li>
	<li>Record root mean square roughness (Sq) and average roughness (Sa) values for each specimen.</li>
</ol>
4. Preparation of &#305;ndirect composite resin discs
<ol>
	<li>Fabricate plexiglass molds to produce disc-shaped composite specimens with a diameter of 5 mm and a thickness of 5 mm (Figure 4A&#8211;B).</li>
	<li>Place indirect composite resin material into the mold cavities to obtain disc-shaped specimens with a diameter of 5 mm and a thickness of 5 mm.</li>
	<li>Polymerize the composite specimens using a laboratory light-curing unit according to the manufacturer&#8217;s instructions, ensuring uniform light exposure from all directions.</li>
	<li>Remove the polymerized composite discs from the molds and rinse with deionized water for 1 min.</li>
	<li>Air-dry the specimens for 10 s.</li>
	<li>Abrade the bonding surface of each composite disc using 110 &#181;m aluminum oxide particles at 0.5 MPa pressure for 15 s, maintaining a distance of 10 mm.</li>
	<li>Standardize the application by maintaining consistent distance and angulation across all specimens.</li>
	<li>Clean all composite discs ultrasonically in distilled water for 10 min and allow them to air-dry.</li>
</ol>
5. Luting procedure
<ol>
	<li>Divide each surface treatment group into two subgroups (n = 30) according to the luting cement used: zinc oxide non-eugenol cement and self-adhesive resin cement.</li>
	<li>For zinc oxide non-eugenol cement, dispense equal lengths of base and catalyst pastes onto a mixing pad and mix for approximately 20 s until a homogeneous consistency is achieved. Apply the mixed cement to the treated PEEK surface using a spatula, applying gentle pressure to minimize air entrapment.</li>
	<li>For self-adhesive resin cement, attach an automix tip to the syringe and dispense a small initial amount to ensure proper mixing. Then, apply the cement directly to the treated PEEK surface, keeping the tip in contact to maintain a continuous flow and reduce air entrapment, and cover the entire bonding area with a uniform layer.</li>
	<li>Position the composite disc centrally onto the cement-covered PEEK surface using visual alignment and apply a standardized load to ensure consistent seating and cement thickness, avoiding lateral movement during seating.</li>
	<li>Apply a constant vertical load of 500 g for 10 s to standardize cement thickness and ensure uniform adaptation (Figure 5).</li>
	<li>Remove excess cement from the margins using a microbrush.</li>
	<li>For zinc oxide non-eugenol cement, allow a setting time of 6 min under the applied load.</li>
	<li>For self-adhesive resin cement, polymerize using a light-curing device (from all directions for a total of 80 s at a distance of 5 mm.</li>
	<li>Maintain consistent positioning and alignment of all specimens throughout the procedure to minimize variability.</li>
</ol>
6. Thermocycling 
<ol>
	<li>Divide each cement subgroup into two additional subgroups (n = 15) according to thermocycling conditions: with thermocycling and without thermocycling.</li>
	<li>Subject specimens in the thermocycling group to 5,500 cycles between 5 &#176;C and 55 &#176;C (&#177;2 &#176;C) using a thermocycling device20,29,30(Figure 6A&#8211;B).</li>
	<li>Set the dwell time in each bath to 30 s and the transfer time between baths to 2 s.</li>
	<li>Maintain consistent cycling conditions for all specimens throughout the procedure.</li>
</ol>
7. Shear bond strength testing
<ol>
	<li>Embed each cemented specimen (PEEK&#8211;cement&#8211;composite assembly) in self-curing acrylic resin using stainless steel molds with a diameter of 15 mm and a height of 15 mm.</li>
	<li>Mount each specimen in a universal testing machine using a custom jig to ensure stable positioning.</li>
	<li>Align the loading blade parallel to the bonding interface and position it as close as possible to the interface.</li>
	<li>Apply shear force at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until failure occurs (Figure 7).</li>
	<li>Record the maximum load at failure (N) for each specimen.</li>
	<li>Calculate shear bond strength (SBS) values in megapascals (MPa) using the formula: SBS (MPa) = Load (N) / bonding area (mm2)14.</li>
</ol>
8. Failure mode analysis
<ol>
	<li>Examine debonded specimens under a stereomicroscope at 40x magnification.</li>
	<li>Classify failure modes according to previously described criteria as adhesive, mixed, or cohesive failures, as defined in the literature31.
	<ol>
		<li>Identify adhesive failure when debonding occurs at the interface between PEEK and the luting cement or between the cement and the indirect composite, with no cement remnants observed on either substrate.</li>
		<li>Identify mixed failure when partial cement remnants remain on the PEEK surface while other areas of the substrate are exposed.</li>
		<li>Identify cohesive failure when fracture occurs within the PEEK substrate or within the indirect composite material.</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
	<li>Record failure mode distributions for each experimental group.</li>
</ol>
9. Statistical analysis
<ol>
	<li>Perform statistical analysis using SPSS software.</li>
	<li>Express surface roughness and shear bond strength data as mean &#177; standard deviation.</li>
	<li>Assess the normality of data distribution using the Shapiro&#8211;Wilk test.</li>
	<li>Assess homogeneity of variances using Levene&#8217;s test. The assumption of homogeneity of variances was satisfied (p &#62; 0.05).</li>
	<li>Analyze surface roughness data using the Kruskal&#8211;Wallis test to compare differences among surface treatment protocols when data are non-normally distributed.</li>
	<li>Perform pairwise comparisons using Dunn&#8217;s post hoc test with Bonferroni adjustment.</li>
	<li>Analyze shear bond strength data using three-way ANOVA analysis to evaluate the main effects and interactions of surface treatment protocol, luting cement type, and thermocycling.</li>
	<li>Perform post hoc pairwise comparisons using estimated marginal means with sequential Bonferroni adjustment.</li>
	<li>Set the level of statistical significance at p &#60; 0.05.</li>
</ol>

<ol>
	<li>Santing HJ, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, et al. Fracture strength and failure mode of maxillary implant-supported provisional single crowns: a comparison of composite resin crowns fabricated directly over PEEK abutments and solid titanium abutments. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2012;14(6):882&#8211;889. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00322.x</li>
	<li>Ortega-Mart&#237;nez J, Delgado LM, Ortiz-Hern&#225;ndez M, et al. In vitro assessment of PEEK and titanium implant abutments: screw loosening and microleakage evaluations under dynamic mechanical testing. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2022;127(3):470&#8211;476. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.033.</li>
	<li>Tetelman ED, Babbush CA. A new transitional abutment for immediate aesthetics and function. Implant Dentistry. 2008;17(1):51&#8211;58. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e318167648c.</li>
	<li>Roehling S, Schlegel KA, Woelfler H, et al. Zirconia compared to titanium dental implants in preclinical studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2019;30:365&#8211;395. doi: 10.1111/clr.13425.</li>
	<li>Dede D&#214;, K&#252;&#231;&#252;kekenci AS, Kahveci &#199;. Influence of chairside surface treatments on the shear bond strength of PEKK polymer to veneering resin materials: an in vitro study. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2021;125(4):703.e1&#8211;703.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.10.031.</li>
	<li>Stawarczyk B, Jordan P, Schmidlin PR, et al. PEEK surface treatment effects on tensile bond strength to veneering resins. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2014;112(5):1278&#8211;1288. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.014.</li>
	<li>Noiset O, Schneider YJ, Marchand-Brynaert J. Adhesion and growth of CaCo2 cells on surface-modified PEEK substrata. Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer Edition. 2000;11:767&#8211;786. doi: 10.1163/156856200744002.</li>
	<li>Schmidlin PR, et al. Effect of different surface pre-treatments and luting materials on shear bond strength to PEEK. Dental Materials. 2010;26(6):553&#8211;559. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.02.003.</li>
	<li>Stawarczyk B, Beuer F, Wimmer T, et al. Polyetheretherketone: a suitable material for fixed dental prostheses? Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials. 2013;101(7):1209&#8211;1216. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.32932.</li>
	<li>Sproesser O, Schmidlin PR, Uhrenbacher J, et al. Effect of sulfuric acid etching of polyetheretherketone on the shear bond strength to resin cements. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2014;16(5):465&#8211;472. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a32806.</li>
	<li>Soares Machado P, Cadore Rodrigues AC, Chaves ET, Susin AH, Valandro LF, Pereira GKR, Rippe MP. Surface treatments and adhesives used to increase the bond strength between polyetheretherketone and resin-based dental materials: a scoping review. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2022;24:233&#8211;245. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.b2288283.</li>
	<li>Gama LT, Duque TM, &#214;zcan M, Philippi AG, Mezzomo LAM, Gon&#231;alves TMSV. Adhesion to high-performance polymers applied in dentistry: a systematic review. Dental Materials. 2020;36(4):e93&#8211;e108. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2020.01.002.</li>
	<li>Chaijareenont P, Prakhamsai S, Silthampitag P, Takahashi H, Arksornnukit M. Effects of different sulfuric acid etching concentrations on PEEK surface bonding to resin composite. Dental Materials Journal. 2018;37(3):385&#8211;392. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2017-141.</li>
	<li>Gabra EN, Sadek HMA, Hamdy AM, et al. Effect of surface treatment and resin cement type on the bond strength of polyetheretherketone to lithium disilicate ceramic. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24:513. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04269-8.</li>
	<li>Tosun B, Yan&#305;ko&#287;lu N. Evaluation of the effects of different surface modification methods on the bond strength of high-performance polymers and resin matrix ceramics. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2022;26(4):3781&#8211;3790. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-04348-y.</li>
	<li>&#199;ulhao&#287;lu AK, &#214;zk&#305;r SE, &#350;ahin V, Y&#305;lmaz B, K&#305;l&#305;&#231;arslan MA. Effect of various treatment modalities on surface characteristics and shear bond strengths of polyetheretherketone-based core materials. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2020;29(2):136&#8211;141. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12702.</li>
	<li>Caglar I, Ates SM, Yesil Duymus Z. An in vitro evaluation of the effect of various adhesives and surface treatments on bond strength of resin cement to polyetheretherketone. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2019;28(1):342&#8211;349. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12791.</li>
	<li>Rosentritt M, Preis V, Behr M, et al. Shear bond strength between veneering composite and PEEK after different surface modifications. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2015;19(3):739&#8211;744. doi: 10.1007/s00784-014-1294-2.</li>
	<li>Stawarczyk B, Taufall S, Roos M, et al. Bonding of composite resins to PEEK: the influence of adhesive systems and air-abrasion parameters. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2018;22:763&#8211;771. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2151-x.</li>
	<li>Stawarczyk B, B&#228;hr N, Beuer F, Wimmer T, Eichberger M, Gernet W. Influence of plasma pretreatment on shear bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to polyetheretherketone. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2014;18:163&#8211;170. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-0966-7.</li>
	<li>Zhou L, Qian Y, Zhu Y, et al. The effect of different surface treatments on the bond strength of PEEK composite materials. Dental Materials. 2014;30(8):209&#8211;215. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.03.011.</li>
	<li>Schwitalla AD, et al. The impact of argon/oxygen low-pressure plasma on shear bond strength between a veneering composite and different PEEK materials. Dental Materials. 2017;33:990&#8211;994. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2017.06.003.</li>
	<li>Taha D, Safwat F, Wahsh M. Effect of combining different surface treatments on the surface characteristics of polyetheretherketone-based core materials and shear bond strength to a veneering composite resin. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2022;127:599.e1&#8211;599.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.004.</li>
	<li>Keul C, Liebermann A, Schmidlin PR, et al. Influence of PEEK surface modification on its properties and bond strength to veneering resin composites. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2014;16:383&#8211;392. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a32570.</li>
	<li>Uhrenbacher J, Schmidlin PR, Keul C, et al. The effect of surface modification on the retention strength of polyetheretherketone crowns adhesively bonded to dentin abutments. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2014;112:1489&#8211;1497. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.010.</li>
	<li>Hallmann L, Mehl A, Sereno N, et al. The improvement of adhesive properties of PEEK through different pre-treatments. Applied Surface Science. 2012;258(18):7213&#8211;7218. doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2012.04.040.</li>
	<li>Ourahmoune R, Salvia M, Mathia TG, et al. Surface morphology and wettability of sandblasted PEEK and its composites. Scanning. 2014;36(1):64&#8211;75. doi: 10.1002/sca.21110.</li>
	<li>Sakihara M, Taira Y, Sawase T. Effects of sulfuric and vinyl sulfonic acid etchants on bond strength of resin composite to polyetherketoneketone. Odontology. 2019;107:158&#8211;164. doi: 10.1007/s10266-018-0371-3.</li>
	<li>Jahandideh Y, Falahchai M, Pourkhalili H. Effect of surface treatment with Er:YAG and CO2 lasers on shear bond strength of polyether ether ketone to composite resin veneers. Journal of Lasers in Medical Sciences. 2020;11(2):153&#8211;159. doi: 10.34172/jlms.2020.26.</li>
	<li>Gale MS, Darvell BW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. Journal of Dentistry. 1999;27(2):89&#8211;99. doi: 10.1016/s0300-5712(98)00037-2.</li>
	<li>Gouveia DDNM, Razzoog ME, Sierraalta M, Alfaro MF. Effect of surface treatment and manufacturing process on the shear bond strength of veneering composite resin to polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2022;128(5):1061&#8211;1066. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.03.009.</li>
	<li>Ates SM, Caglar I, Yesil Duymus Z. The effect of different surface pretreatments on the bond strength of veneering resin to polyetheretherketone. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology. 2018;32(20):2220&#8211;2231. doi: 10.1080/01694243.2018.1475646.</li>
	<li>Tsuka H, Morita K, Kato K, et al. Effect of laser groove treatment on shear bond strength of resin-based luting agent to polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Journal of Prosthodontic Research. 2019;63(1):52&#8211;57. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2018.08.002.</li>
	<li>Ulgey M, Gorler O, Karahan Gunduz C. Effects of laser modalities on shear bond strengths of composite superstructure to zirconia and PEEK infrastructures: an in vitro study. Odontology. 2021;109(4):845&#8211;853. doi: 10.1007/s10266-021-00614-9.</li>
	<li>Kimura H, Tsuka H, Morita K, et al. Nd:YVO4 laser groove treatment can improve the shear bond strength between dental PEEK and adhesive resin cement with an adhesive system. Dental Materials Journal. 2022;41:1&#8211;7. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2021-198.</li>
	<li>Okawa S, Aoyagi Y, Kimura T, et al. Effect of pre-coating with methyl methacrylate containing UV photoinitiators on the bond strength of poly(ether ether ketone). Dental Materials Journal. 2021;40(2):519&#8211;524. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2020-253.</li>
	<li>Henriques B, Fabris D, Mesquita-Guimar&#227;es J, et al. Influence of laser structuring of PEEK, PEEK-GF30, and PEEK-CF30 surfaces on the shear bond strength to a resin cement. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2018;84:225&#8211;234. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.05.019.</li>
	<li>Stawarczyk B, Trottmann A, H&#228;mmerle CH, et al. Adhesion of veneering resins to polymethylmethacrylate-based CAD/CAM polymers after various surface conditioning methods. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2013;71(5):1142&#8211;1148. doi: 10.3109/00016357.2012.741706.</li>
	<li>Kern M, Lehmann F. Influence of surface conditioning on bonding to polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Dental Materials. 2012;28:1280&#8211;1283. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.09.008.</li>
	<li>L&#252;mkemann N, Strickstrock M, Eichberger M, et al. Impact of air abrasion pressure and adhesive systems on bonding parameters for polyetheretherketone dental restorations. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives. 2018;80:30&#8211;38. doi: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2017.10.002.</li>
	<li>Bunz O, Benz CI, Arnold WH, et al. Shear bond strength of veneering composite to high-performance polymers. Dental Materials Journal. 2020;39:1&#8211;8. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2019-197.</li>
	<li>Mayinger F, Fiebig M, Roos M, et al. Bonding behavior between polyetheretherketone and polymethylmethacrylate acrylic denture polymer. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2021;23(2):145&#8211;158. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.b10730.</li>
	<li>Pourkhalili H, Asli HN, Toreihi N, et al. Shear bond strength of different luting agents to polyether ether ketone. Dental Research Journal. 2022;19:45. doi: 10.4103/1735-3327.345563.</li>
</ol>

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

The present study introduced a standardized in vitro. protocol for evaluating the combined effects of surface treatment protocols, luting cement selection, and thermocycling on the shear bond strength between polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and an indirect composite material. The results demonstrated that these variables significantly influenced bonding outcomes, thereby rejecting the null hypothesis. Surface treatment constitutes a critical component of the protocol. Consistent with previous investigations, sandbla...

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has emerged as a promising high-performance polymer in prosthodontics due to its favorable mechanical properties, chemical stability, low density, and tooth-colored appearance1,2,3. Compared with conventional materials such as titanium, PEEK offers advantages including ease of chairside modification and reduced esthetic compromise4. However, despite these advantages, its clinical application is limited by its chemically inert structure and low surface energy, which result in poor adhesion to resin-based materials5,6.
Previous studies have demonstrated that untreated PEEK surfaces exhibit insufficient bonding to composite resins, making surface modification a critical step for achieving clinically acceptable bond strength6,7. Various surface treatment strategies have been proposed to overcome this limitation, including sulfuric acid etching8,9,10,11,12,13,14, airborne particle abrasion with aluminum oxide6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16, tribochemical silica coating8,15,16,17,18,19, plasma treatments9,20,21,22, and laser irradiation6,23,24,25,26,27. However, the effectiveness of these approaches varies considerably depending on the protocol parameters and materials used, resulting in inconsistent bonding outcomes across studies17.
In addition to surface treatment, the type of luting cement plays a crucial role in determining bond strength. Temporary cements, such as zinc oxide non-eugenol formulations, are commonly used for provisional restorations, whereas self-adhesive resin cements provide stronger adhesion through micromechanical and potential chemical interactions24. Furthermore, thermocycling is widely used to simulate intraoral temperature fluctuations and assess the durability of the bonded interface over time6,17,25. These variables&#8212;surface treatment, cement type, and thermal aging&#8212;have been investigated individually; however, their combined effects are often evaluated using heterogeneous methodologies11.
Despite the growing body of literature on PEEK bonding11, there is currently no standardized, reproducible experimental protocol that integrates surface treatment, cementation, and thermocycling into a unified workflow. Differences in specimen preparation, surface modification parameters, cement application procedures, and aging protocols limit the comparability of results and reduce reproducibility across studies. Moreover, the lack of visual demonstration of critical procedural steps further contributes to variability in experimental outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study is to present and validate a standardized experimental protocol for assessing PEEK&#8211;composite bonding under controlled surface treatment, cementation, and thermocycling conditions. The null hypothesis of this study is that surface treatment methods, luting cement types, and thermocycling procedures do not significantly affect the shear bond strength between PEEK and indirect composite materials.

<table><tbody><tr><td>Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rods</td><td>Mitsubishi Chemical Group (MCAM)</td><td>KETRON&amp;reg; CLASSIX LSG PEEK (white)</td><td>Used to fabricate disc-shaped specimens</td></tr><tr><td>Precision cutting device</td><td>Buehler</td><td>IsoMet 1000</td><td>Used for sectioning PEEK rods into standardized discs</td></tr><tr><td>Polishing device</td><td>Buehler</td><td>Phoenix Beta</td><td>Used for standardized surface polishing</td></tr><tr><td>Silicon carbide abrasive paper (600-grit)</td><td>3M</td><td>01993 (Wetordry&amp;trade; Sandpaper Sheet, 600 grit)</td><td>Used under water cooling for surface polishing</td></tr><tr><td>Ultrasonic cleaner</td><td>Tecno-Gaz</td><td>Astra S</td><td>Used for cleaning specimens</td></tr><tr><td>Aluminum oxide particles (110 &amp;micro;m)</td><td>&amp;mdash;</td><td>&amp;mdash;</td><td>Used for airborne particle abrasion</td></tr><tr><td>Sandblasting unit</td><td>Danville Engineering</td><td>MicroEtcher ERC</td><td>Used for surface roughening</td></tr><tr><td>Sulfuric acid (98%)</td><td>Sigma-Aldrich (Merck)</td><td>258105</td><td>CAUTION: Corrosive; handle with appropriate protective equipment</td></tr><tr><td>Er:YAG laser system</td><td>Hoya ConBio</td><td>&amp;mdash;</td><td>Used for laser surface treatment of PEEK</td></tr><tr><td>Atomic force microscope</td><td>Quesant Instrument Corporation, USA</td><td>&amp;mdash;</td><td>Used for surface topography analysis</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect composite resin</td><td>GC Corporation</td><td>Gradia Indirect</td><td>Used for fabrication of composite discs</td></tr><tr><td>Zinc oxide non-eugenol cement</td><td>Kerr</td><td>TempBond NE</td><td>Temporary luting cement</td></tr><tr><td>Self-adhesive resin cement</td><td>3M ESPE</td><td>RelyX U200 Automix</td><td>Resin luting cement</td></tr><tr><td>Light-curing unit</td><td>Kerr</td><td>Optilux</td><td>Used for polymerization of resin cement</td></tr><tr><td>Thermocycler</td><td>Salubris Technica</td><td>Dentester</td><td>Used for artificial aging</td></tr><tr><td>Self-curing acrylic resin</td><td>Bayer Dental Ltd.</td><td>Meliodent</td><td>Used for specimen embedding</td></tr><tr><td>Universal testing machine</td><td>Instron</td><td>3345</td><td>Used for shear bond strength testing</td></tr><tr><td>Stereomicroscope</td><td>Nikon</td><td>SMZ 800</td><td>Used for failure mode analysis</td></tr></tbody></table>

standardized protocol to evaluate the effect of surface treatments, luting cements, and thermocycling on peek&#8211;composite bond strength

Standardized Protocol to Evaluate the Effect of Surface Treatments, Luting Cements, and Thermocycling on PEEK&#8211;Composite Bond Strength

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has gained increasing attention as a biomaterial in prosthodontics; however, achieving durable adhesion to veneering composite materials remains a major challenge due to its chemically inert structure. This study presents and validates a standardized, reproducible protocol for evaluating shear bond strength (SBS) between PEEK and an indirect composite resin under different surface treatments, luting cements, and thermocycling conditions. A total of 240 PEEK discs were divided into four groups according to surface treatment: no surface treatment, sandblasting, sulfuric acid etching, and laser irradiation. Surface morphology was analyzed using atomic force microscopy. Each group was then subdivided according to the luting cement used (zinc oxide non-eugenol cement or self-adhesive resin cement; n = 30), and further subdivided into thermocycled and non-thermocycled groups (n = 15). SBS was measured using a universal testing machine, and failure modes were analyzed under a stereomicroscope. Among all experimental groups, specimens luted with self-adhesive resin cement and not subjected to thermocycling demonstrated the highest SBS values (25.134 &#177; 1.665 MPa), whereas specimens luted with zinc oxide non-eugenol cement and subjected to thermocycling exhibited the lowest SBS values (1.958 &#177; 0.345 MPa). For all surface treatment protocols, SBS values were significantly higher in specimens luted with self-adhesive resin cement compared with zinc oxide non-eugenol cement (p &#60; 0.001). Thermocycling significantly reduced SBS values across all groups (p &#60; 0.001). This protocol highlights critical procedural steps, including surface treatment selection and cement type, that significantly influence bonding outcomes. The standardized workflow and visual demonstration of key steps provide a reproducible framework for evaluating PEEK&#8211;composite bonding.

This protocol enables reproducible assessment of the effects of surface treatment, luting cement type, and thermocycling on the bonding performance between polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and an indirect composite resin. AFM revealed distinct surface topographies depending on the applied surface treatment (Table 1). Untreated PEEK specimens exhibited relatively smooth and homogeneous surfaces with minimal irregularities. Sandblasted specimens showed increased surface roughness with irregular peaks and valley...

This protocol aims to evaluate the effects of surface treatment protocols, luting cement selection, and thermocycling on the shear bond strength between PEEK and an indirect composite resin.

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has gained increasing attention as a biomaterial in prosthodontics; however, achieving durable adhesion to veneering composite ...

This study presents a standardized protocol to evaluate the effects of surface treatment, cement type, and thermocycling on PEEK composite bone strength. The protocol facilitates consistent evaluation of bonding approaches that may improve the long-term performance of PEEK restorations. To begin, obtain polyether ether ketone, or PEEK, disk specimens.Surface-treat them according to the designated protocols. Prepare standardized indirect composite resin disks for bonding to the treated PEEK surfaces using different luting cements. Divide each surface treatment group into zinc oxide non-eugenol cement and self-adhesive resin cement groups.For the zinc oxide non-eugenol cement, dispense equal lengths of the base and catalyst pastes onto a mixing pad. Mix for approximately 20 seconds until a homogeneous consistency is achieved. Using a spatula, apply the mixed cement to the treated PEEK surface with gentle pressure to minimize air entrapment.For the self-adhesive resin cement, attach an automixed tip to the syringe and dispense a small initial amount to ensure proper mixing. Then, apply the cement directly to the treated PEEK surface while keeping the tip in contact to maintain continuous flow and reduce air entrapment. Cover the entire bonding area with a uniform layer.Position the composite disk centrally on either of the cement-covered PEEK surfaces. Next, apply a constant vertical load of 500 grams for 10 seconds to standardize cement thickness and ensure uniform adaptation. Remove excess cement from the margins using a microbrush.For the zinc oxide non-eugenol cement, allow a setting time of six minutes under the applied load. For the self-adhesive resin cement, polymerize with a light curing device from all directions for a total of 80 seconds at a distance of five millimeters. Thermo-cycle the designated specimens between five and 55 degrees Celsius for a total of 5, 500 cycles under standardized conditions.Then, mount the embedded specimen in a universal testing machine and perform the shear bond strength test. Self-adhesive resin cement showed higher shear bond strength values than zinc oxide non-eugenol cement across all surface treatment groups. The specimens luted with temporary cement after thermocycling showed the lowest shear bond strength values compared to other groups.Thermocycling reduced the shear bond strength values for both cement types. The sandblasted specimens luted with resin cement without thermocycling showed the highest shear bond strength values. The sulfuric acid etched and laser-treated specimens demonstrated intermediate shear bond strength values.The untreated PEEK surfaces luted with temporary cement showed shear bond strength values comparable to or higher than the treated surfaces. This protocol can be used to measure the durability of PEEK composite adhesion under simulated clinical conditions. Safe handling of sulfuric acid and laser equipment is essential to ensure operator safety and procedural consistency.Future studies can evaluate additional surface treatments, different cements, composites, and thermocycling conditions to optimize PEEK bonding.

standardized-protocol-to-evaluate-effect-surface-treatments-luting

Research

JoVE Journal

Chemistry

We present a procedure, ASTM D7998-19, for a rapid and more consistent evaluation of both dry and wet strength of adhesive bonds on wood. The method can also be used to provide information on strength development as a function of temperature and time or strength retention up to 250 °C.

Standard Test Method ASTM D 7998-19 for the Cohesive Strength Development of Wood Adhesives

This methodology allows applying a dental appliance on any specimen at any angle with standardized force and stability. This approach might be extensively used in health sciences to standardize the impacts of dental equipment with hand-holding elements such as micromotors, turbines, and ultrasonic scalers on varied surfaces.

Roughness Impact of Piezoelectric Dental Scaler on Two Distinct Flowable Composite Filling Materials

A quasistatic load-to-fracture test with a non-fixed stainless steel ball was developed to determine the fracture strength of minimally invasive posterior computer-aided design and manufacturing restorations cemented to dentin analog materials. This test models the typical loading regime responsible for the fracture of dental restorations.

Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material

Here, we evaluated the impact of various polishing methods on the color stability of compomer and composite resin restorations used in anterior restorations within pediatric dentistry. This study highlights the significance of selecting appropriate polishing methods to enhance the color stability of compomer and composite resin restorations in pediatric dentistry.

Evaluating the Effects of Different Polishing Methods on Color Stability of Dental Restorations in Pediatric Dentistry

The present protocol describes an experimental model based on ink-staining which can be used for in vitro implant surface decontamination and roughness research to contribute to clinical decision-making.

Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness

The present pilot in vitro study aimed to evaluate the cleaning efficacy of three different decontamination tools and possible surface alterations following treatment, using permanent red ink to mimic the presence of oral biofilm.

Pilot In Vitro Study to Assess Cleaning Ability and Effects of Different Decontamination Methods on Implant Surfaces

We present a method to control the interfacial energy of a liquid metal in an electrolyte via electrochemical deposition (or removal) of a surface oxide layer. This simple method can control the capillary behavior of gallium-based liquid metals by tuning the interfacial energy rapidly, significantly, and reversibly using modest voltages.

A Method to Manipulate Surface Tension of a Liquid Metal via Surface Oxidation and Reduction

Detailed and generalized protocols are presented for the synthesis and subsequent purification of four palladium N-heterocyclic carbene complexes from benzimidazolium salts. The complexes were tested for catalytic activity in arylation and Suzuki-Miyaura reactions. For each reaction investigated, at least one of the four complexes successfully catalyzed the reaction.

Palladium N-Heterocyclic Carbene Complexes: Synthesis from Benzimidazolium Salts and Catalytic Activity in Carbon-carbon Bond-forming Reactions

The focus of the present work is to establish means to generate and quantify levels of Ti-O-Si linkages and to correlate these with the photocatalytic properties of the supported TiO2.

The Effect of Interfacial Chemical Bonding in TiO2-SiO2 Composites on Their Photocatalytic NOx Abatement Performance

This article describes the effect of dissimilar charging/discharging temperatures on the degradation of lithium iron phosphate-graphite pouch cells, aiming at simulating close to real case scenarios. In total, 10 temperature combinations are investigated in the range -20 to 30 °C in order to analyze the impact of temperature on degradation.

The Effect of Charging and Discharging Lithium Iron Phosphate-graphite Cells at Different Temperatures on Degradation

Private practice.  This protocol aims to evaluate the effects of surface treatment protocols, luting cement selection, and thermocycling on the shear bond strength between PEEK and an indirect composite resin.

Standardized Protocol to Evaluate the Effect of Surface Treatments, Luting Cements, and Thermocycling on PEEK–Composite Bond Strength

Explore More Videos