Effect of different surface pretreatments and adhesives on the load-bearing capacity of veneered 3-unit PEEK FDPs

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) can be used as a framework material for fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). However, information about the fracture load of veneered PEEK FDPs is still scarce. PURPOSE The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the influence of different PEEK surface pretreatments and adhesive systems on the fracture load of 2 differently veneered FDPs. MATERIAL AND METHODS Four hundred eighty anatomically shaped 3-unit PEEK frameworks were milled, airborne-particle abraded with 50 m alumina powder, and divided into 4 groups according to the following surface pretreatment (n=120): plasma treatment, etching with either sulfuric acid or piranha solution, and no further treatment. All groups were then allocated to 4 conditioning groups: visio.link, Ambarino P60, Signum PEEK Bond, or no conditioning. They were veneered with Signum Composite (n=15) or Signum Ceramis (n=15). Upon completion, the FDPs were thermally aged, and fracture loads and failure types were determined. Statistical analysis was performed with 3/2/1-way ANOVA with the post hoc Tukey HSD test (=.05). RESULTS The highest fracture loads were achieved without treatment in combination with visio.link (737 ±138 N). The lowest values were obtained after piranha acid etching and conditioning with visio.link (277 ±71 N); both groups were veneered with Signum Composite. The results, however, indicated no clear influence of either pretreatment or conditioning. With few exceptions, FDPs veneered with Signum Composite showed higher fracture load values compared to Signum Ceramis. After thermocycling, all FDPs showed cracks in the veneering composite resin material in the pontic region, regardless of the PEEK pretreatment or the adhesive system used. After loading, no fractures of the PEEK frameworks were evident in any FDPs, but chipping of the veneering material was observed. CONCLUSIONS With respect to the fracture types after thermocycling, pretreatment, conditioning, or veneering resin cement did not affect the fracture results.

Fracture load and failure types of different veneered polyetheretherketone fixed dental prostheses

“…In contrast to the challenges mentioned with conventional veneering composite resin [23], no pre-test failures related to thermocycling were observed in this study and the thermocycling had no influence on the load-bearing capacity. The failure type cracking was observed for the first three groups while the fourth group showed an adhesive failure.…”

“…This study used two differently filled (86% versus 74% w/w) veneering composite resins based on the same matrix. The FDPs, which were veneered using the lower filled veneering composite material tended to result in higher fracture loads than those veneered with the higher filled material [23].…”

“…1a) and the PEEK framework used in this study are described in more detail elsewhere [23]. The resulting pontics (Fig.…”

“…A first peer-reviewed study of veneered PEEK FDPs showed no impact of PEEK surface pretreatment and veneering material on the facture load results [23].…”

Physicomechanical characterization of polyetheretherketone and current esthetic dental CAD/CAM polymers after aging in different storage media

“…PEEK shows remarkable mechanical properties 13,14 and has been evaluated for use for FDPs in load-bearing areas. [15][16][17] However, PEEK restorations have a grayish-brown or pearl-white opaque color and need to be veneered with composite resin. Previous studies obtained adequate bond strength to composite resin cements when PEEK surfaces were pretreated and conditioned using adhesive systems contains MMA-monomers.…”