Study on the surface properties of different commercially available CAD/CAM materials for implant‐supported restorations

Abstract

Objective: To determine if there are any differences in surface characteristics (surface roughness and contact angle) among different CAD/CAM materials indicated for fabricating implant-supported restorations, following all the material preparation protocols provided by the manufacturer.Materials and Methods: One-hundred forty-four specimens were divided into six groups: RBC (resin-based composite), PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate), PEEK (polyether ether ketone), ZP (zirconia polished), ZG (zirconia glazed) and CoCr 4 (CoCr 4 alloy). The experimental part included surface roughness (SR) and contact angle of water (WCA) analyses, fulfilled with Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) view of surface topography. The data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test with a Dunn's post hoc analysis, the correlation between measurements was tested using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and all data were presented as mean ± SD.Results: ZG specimens were significantly rougher compared to other groups (p ≤ 0.05). The WCA measurements revealed significantly lower mean values in ZG group (p ≤ 0.05), contrary to PEEK and CoCr 4 , where significantly higher mean values were observed, compared to other groups (p ≤ 0.05). There exist a moderate negative correlation between the SR and WCA (ρ = À0.41). AFM 3D and SEM 2D images presented more or less heterogeneous surface of all materials.Conclusions: There were statistically significant differences in surface roughness and contact angle among tested material groups. Moderate negative correlation was found between surface roughness and contact angle of tested material groups.

Clinical Applications of Polyetheretherketone in Removable Dental Prostheses: Accuracy, Characteristics, and Performance

“…The surface roughness of dental materials is extremely important, as it influences microbial adhesion, biocompatibility, wear, corrosion behavior, and esthetics [ 25 ]. Reduced surface irregularities play a significant function in improving tongue sensation and in preventing dental plaque from adhering to dental prosthetics.…”

“…Previous research [ 28 ] reported that PEEK discs showed significantly higher nano-roughness than machined titanium ( p = 0.005). For other materials, in vitro research [ 25 ] comparing PEEK and other CAD/CAM materials showed that samples of PEEK were slightly rougher than samples of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and resin-based composites. The reason for this could be related to the ceramic particles added to PEEK [ 25 , 29 ].…”

“…For other materials, in vitro research [ 25 ] comparing PEEK and other CAD/CAM materials showed that samples of PEEK were slightly rougher than samples of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and resin-based composites. The reason for this could be related to the ceramic particles added to PEEK [ 25 , 29 ]. To eliminate the influence of fillers, another study by Benli et al [ 30 ] showed that pure PEEK exhibited the lowest Ra values (0.139 ± 0.017 μm) as compared to PMMA (0.192 ± 0.018 μm) after wet polishing using 2500- and 4000-grit silicon carbide paper.…”

Microbial adhesion and viability on novel CAD/CAM framework materials for implant‐supported hybrid prostheses

“…Cylinder-shaped specimens, with 5 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness, were obtained for each of the three materials: ZR (zirconia), PEEK (polyether ether ketone) and CoCr 4 (CoCr 4 alloy). The complete preparation, finishing and polishing procedure of all specimens was completed by one operator, strictly following manufacturer's recommendation, as described in our previous research [17]. Prepared specimens were cleaned in an ultrasonic bath (BK-3A Ultrasonic cleaner; Baku), in 70% ethanol for 5 min and distilled water for another 5 min.…”

Surface roughness evaluation of different novel CAD/CAM dental materials

“…Therefore, the first null hypothesis is rejected. The fact that during the glazing procedure technician manually apply the glaze layer with the brush onto the material's surface could be the best explanation for these results [30]. In addition, the glazed surface is rich with bubbles, which leads to the impossibility to create a surface as smooth as when finishing the material's surface using burs and rubbers [22].…”