IADR Abstract Archives
Resin Bonding to PEEK Using Different Surface Conditioning Methods
Objectives: The purpose of this laboratory study was to evaluate the tensile strength of resin bonding to polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and its durability when using different surface conditioning methods.
Methods: Ninety-six Plexiglas tubes (inner diameter 3.2 mm) filled with composite (Luxatemp Fluorescense, DMG, Germany) were bonded to PEEK (Kern GmbH, Germany) using the same composite and an alignment apparatus. The specimens were distributed into 2 groups according to the used air-abrasion particles: (A) 50 µm alumina particles and (R) 30 µm silica-coated alumina particles (Rocatec Soft, 3M, USA) . Each group was divided into 3 subgroups (n=16) according to the used primer: (V) composite primer (visio.link, Bredent, Germany), (C) ceramic primer (Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus, Kuraray, Japan) and (CV) both primers. For each subgroup 8 bonded specimens were tested for tensile bond strength following storage in distilled water at 37° C for 3 days. The statistical analysis was conducted with the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by multiple pair-wise comparison of groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test corrected by Bonferroni-Holm.
Results: The mean tensile bond strengths (TBS) in MPa were: (A-V) 16.2±1.5, (A-C) 0.0±0.0, (A-CV) 19.0±3.0; (R-V) 20.0±2.6, (R-C) 1.7±2.2 and (R-CV) 21.7±3.5. There were statistically significant differences (p≤0.05) among groups as revealed by the Kruskal-Wallis test and Wilcoxon rank sum test corrected by Bonferroni Holm. TBS of groups A-V, A-CV, R-V, A-CV, R-V, R-CV were statistically significantly higher than that of groups A-C and R-C. In addition, TBS of R-CV was statistically significantly higher than that of group A-V.
Conclusions: The composite primer promoted strong resin bonding to PEEK independent of the additional application of a ceramic primer while the sole application of the ceramic primer resulted in weak TBS to PEEK.
Methods: Ninety-six Plexiglas tubes (inner diameter 3.2 mm) filled with composite (Luxatemp Fluorescense, DMG, Germany) were bonded to PEEK (Kern GmbH, Germany) using the same composite and an alignment apparatus. The specimens were distributed into 2 groups according to the used air-abrasion particles: (A) 50 µm alumina particles and (R) 30 µm silica-coated alumina particles (Rocatec Soft, 3M, USA) . Each group was divided into 3 subgroups (n=16) according to the used primer: (V) composite primer (visio.link, Bredent, Germany), (C) ceramic primer (Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus, Kuraray, Japan) and (CV) both primers. For each subgroup 8 bonded specimens were tested for tensile bond strength following storage in distilled water at 37° C for 3 days. The statistical analysis was conducted with the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by multiple pair-wise comparison of groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test corrected by Bonferroni-Holm.
Results: The mean tensile bond strengths (TBS) in MPa were: (A-V) 16.2±1.5, (A-C) 0.0±0.0, (A-CV) 19.0±3.0; (R-V) 20.0±2.6, (R-C) 1.7±2.2 and (R-CV) 21.7±3.5. There were statistically significant differences (p≤0.05) among groups as revealed by the Kruskal-Wallis test and Wilcoxon rank sum test corrected by Bonferroni Holm. TBS of groups A-V, A-CV, R-V, A-CV, R-V, R-CV were statistically significantly higher than that of groups A-C and R-C. In addition, TBS of R-CV was statistically significantly higher than that of group A-V.
Conclusions: The composite primer promoted strong resin bonding to PEEK independent of the additional application of a ceramic primer while the sole application of the ceramic primer resulted in weak TBS to PEEK.
