Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 130
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

 Table of Contents  
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 45

Shear bond strength of different luting agents to polyether ether ketone

1 Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Sciences Research Center, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
2 Dental Sciences Research Center, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran

Date of Submission04-May-2021
Date of Acceptance28-Jan-2022
Date of Web Publication01-Jun-2022

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mehran Falahchai
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht-Saravan Road, Rasht
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.346403

Rights and Permissions

Background: Polyether ether ketone (PEEK) was recently introduced to dentistry. However, difficulty in provision of a strong durable bond is its main drawback. Thus, precise surface treatment and use of a suitable luting agent are imperative for bonding of PEEK restorations. This study aimed to assess the effect of type of luting agent on shear bond strength (SBS) of PEEK.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, 60 square-shaped PEEK samples were fabricated and sandblasted with 110 μm Al2O3 particles. The samples were then divided into four groups based on the type of cement used (n = 15): zinc phosphate cement, Panavia F2, Panavia V5, and resin-modified glass-ionomer (RMGI) cement. After bonding, the samples were thermocycled for 5000 cycles. The SBS was measured by a universal testing machine. The surface of samples was inspected under a video measuring machine to determine the mode of failure. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test via SPSS version 24 (α = 0.05).
Results: RMGI did not bond to PEEK. The SBS values were 4.02 ± 2.87 megapascals (MPa) for Panavia V5, 10.84 ± 6.05 MPa for Panavia F2, and 10.50 ± 2.88 MPa for zinc phosphate. The SBS in the Panavia V5 group was significantly lower than that in the Panavia F2 (P = 0.001) and zinc phosphate (P < 0.001) groups. No significant difference existed between the Panavia F2 and zinc phosphate groups in this respect (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: Panavia F2 resin cement and zinc phosphate conventional cement provided the highest bond strength to PEEK, while RMGI did not bond to PEEK.

Keywords: Dental cement, glass-ionomer cement, resin cement, shear strength

How to cite this article:
Pourkhalili H, Asli HN, Toreihi N, Falahchai M. Shear bond strength of different luting agents to polyether ether ketone. Dent Res J 2022;19:45

How to cite this URL:
Pourkhalili H, Asli HN, Toreihi N, Falahchai M. Shear bond strength of different luting agents to polyether ether ketone. Dent Res J [serial online] 2022 [cited 2023 Feb 9];19:45. Available from: https://www.drjjournal.net/text.asp?2022/19/1/45/346403

  Introduction Top

Polyether ether ketone (PEEK) was recently introduced to dentistry.[1] PEEK is a thermoplastic, semi-crystalline polymer from the polyaryl ether ketone family with high performance, which has a linear aromatic structure.[2] It has a number of advantages including high mechanical properties such as high melting temperature and high fatigue resistance, high thermal and chemical resistance, optimal biocompatibility, tooth-like appearance, and easy shaping with bur.[3],[4] Among the available thermoplastic polymers, PEEK has lower water sorption than polymethyl methacrylate.[5] In contrast to composite resin and polymethyl methacrylate, PEEK does not undergo polymerization shrinkage.[6] It has optimal dimensional stability[4] and possesses a modulus of elasticity in-between that of cortical and cancellous bones.[7] Moreover, PEEK is radiolucent and is therefore compatible with the imaging modalities such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and radiography,[8] allowing examination, diagnosis, and treatment of disease conditions without the need for retrieval or replacement of PEEK restorations.[9] In dentistry, PEEK is mainly used for dental implants, temporary abutments, healing abutments, implant-supported bars, and dental clasps.[10] Moreover, due to nonmetallic color, low weight, and high strength, it can be used as a rigid material in removable and fixed partial dentures (FPDs).[11]

The clinical success of FPDs highly depends on their cementation process.[12] Schwartz et al. demonstrated that loss of crown retention was the second most common cause of failure of crowns and the conventional FPDs.[13] Although creation of resistance and retention forms is among the primary principles of tooth preparation, cement are still required for a strong and durable bond between the restoration and the underlying tooth structure.[14] They also increase the fracture resistance of the restored teeth and the restorations.[15] Cement also serve as a barrier against microbial leakage and seal the interface between heterogeneous materials.[14] The main clinical drawback of PEEK is that it cannot form a strong and durable bond to dental materials due to its low surface energy and high resistance to chemical surface treatments[6] because the chemical and aromatic structure of ketone and other constituents of PEEK provide an inert surface with suboptimal bonding capability.[16],[17] Thus, precise surface treatment and use of an appropriate cement are imperative for bonding of PEEK restorations.[18] Although resin cement have been used for cementation of PEEK restorations, the manufacturer claims that different cement types such as zinc phosphate, glass-ionomer, and self-adhesive cement can be used for cementation of PEEK restorations. It is important since resin cement cannot be used when ideal isolation cannot be achieved.[19] Furthermore, the use of resin cement may not be suitable for implant restorations, because one criterion that needs to be addressed in cement selection for implant restorations is the easy removal of excess cement.[20] The possible risk of damage to titanium implants should also be considered.[21] According to a study by Agar et al., zinc phosphate cement residues can be easily removed while resin cement are the most difficult to remove.[22] Thus, the use of traditional cement may be the solution for such cases as studies on the use of these cement for zirconia restorations have reported positive results.[23],[24],[25] Moreover, it has been shown that adhesive properties that are important for stability of a restoration are influenced by the type of resin cement.[9] Thus, selection of the type of resin cement is important as well.

Many studies have assessed the efficacy of different surface treatments for providing a stronger bond between PEEK and resin cement.[6],[9],[26],[27],[28],[29] Moreover, several studies have evaluated the use of different resin cement for this purpose;[9],[11],[27],[30],[31] however, further studies are still required on this topic. Nonetheless, no previous study has assessed the use of traditional cement for cementation of PEEK restorations in comparison with resin cement. Thus, this study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of different luting agents to PEEK. The null hypothesis of the study was that no significant difference would be found in SBS of PEEK to different cement.

  Materials and Methods Top

In this in vitro study, sample size estimation was performed by PASS version 11 by using one-way ANOVA sample size calculation formula and considering the mean values of 2.97, 1.88, 2.44, 1.03, and 0.43 and standard deviation of 1.80 according to a previous study,[32] assuming the statistical power of 0.84, and error rate of 0.05. The minimum sample size was calculated to be 11. However, 15 samples were included to increase the study power.

Sixty square-shaped samples measuring 7 mm in length and width and 2 mm in thickness were fabricated from PEEK discs (breCAM Bio-HPP: Bredent, Senden, Germany) using a cutting machine under water coolant. The bonding surface of the samples was polished with 400–1000-grit silicon carbide papers for 10 s with finger pressure. Each sample was separately mounted in auto-polymerizing acrylic resin (Technovits 4000; Heraeus Kulzer GmbH and Co., Wehrheim, Germany) such that only the bonding surface measuring 7 mm × 7 mm remained exposed. Next, the samples were randomly divided into four groups (n = 15) based on the type of cement to be used by the block randomization method with block length of four: zinc phosphate cement (Richter and Hoffmann: Berlin, Germany), Panavia V5 dual-cure resin cement (Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan), Panavia F2 dual-cure resin cement (Panavia F2: Kuraray, Osaka, Japan), and resin-modified glass-ionomer (RMGI; GC Fuji II: GC America, Illinois, USA) cement. [Table 1] presents the details regarding the cement used in this study.
Table 1: Luting agents used in this study

Click here to view

Prior to the initiation of bonding process, all samples were cleaned in an ultrasonic bath containing deionized water for 10 s and air-dried. Next, the bonding surface of the samples was sandblasted with 110 μm aluminum oxide particles (2.5 bar pressure, 3 cm distance, 10 s time, and 45° angle). All cement were used at room temperature (23°C ± 1°C) and relative humidity (50% ± 5%) according to the manufacturer's instructions. A total of 60 plastic cylinders (Tygon tubes: Saint-Gobain, Courbevoie, France) with an internal diameter of 3.5 mm and height of 5 mm were obtained and filled with composite resin by 2 mm thickness (Filtek Z250: 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA). Composite resin was applied in two layers, and each layer was cured for 20 s using a light-curing unit (Signum: Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany). The remaining part of the cylinders was filled with the respective cement according to the manufacturers' instructions. The cylinders were then placed on PEEK discs upside down [Figure 1]. All procedures were performed by an experienced clinician. For the application of zinc phosphate and RMGI cement on the bonding surface, no adhesive layer was applied on the bonding surface according to the manufacturers' instructions. However, for the application of Panavia F2 and Panavia V5 resin cement, a thin layer of adhesive (Visio.link: Bredent, Senden, Germany) was applied on the PEEK surface with one stroke of a microbrush according to the manufacturers' instructions and immediately light cured for 90 s using a light-curing unit (Labolight: LV-III, GC, Tokyo, Japan). Excess cement was removed from the margins at the bonding surface using a disposable microbrush. Next, the samples cemented with resin cement were light cured for 40 s using a light-curing unit. The light intensity of the device was controlled with Optilux radiometer to be 430 mW/cm2.
Figure 1: Samples prepared in zinc phosphate group prior to thermocycling

Click here to view

After the bonding process, all samples were incubated in an aqueous medium at 37°C ± 1°C for 24 h. The samples were then thermocycled for 5000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C with a dwell time of 20 s in each bath [Figure 2]. The samples that were debonded during thermocycling were categorized as pretest failure with 0 megapascal (MPa) bond strength.
Figure 2: Thermocycling of cemented samples

Click here to view

The SBS was measured using a universal testing machine (STM-20: Santam, Tehran, Iran). The load was applied by the crosshead tip at a speed of 1 mm/min [Figure 3]. The maximum load at failure in Newtons was divided by the surface area in square-millimeters (mm2) to report the bond strength in MPa.
Figure 3: Shear bond strength test

Click here to view

In order to determine the failure mode, the debonded surface was inspected using a video measuring machine (Easson, Guangdong, China) at ×88.4 magnification. Accordingly, the mode of failure was categorized as adhesive (no cement remnant on the PEEK surface), cohesive (fracture in PEEK or cement), and mixed (a combination of adhesive and cohesive failures).

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 24 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Normal distribution of data was evaluated using the KolmogorovSmirnov test, which revealed that data were not normally distributed. Thus, the mean SBS of the groups was compared using nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test. Pairwise comparisons were carried out using the Mann–Whitney test with Bonferroni adjustment. Level of significance was set at 0.05.

  Results Top

All samples cemented with RMGI failed during thermocycling (pretest failure). Thus, they were not included in statistical analysis. The mean and standard deviation of SBS in each group are presented in [Table 2]. According to the Kruskal–Wallis test, a significant difference existed in the mean SBS of the groups (P < 0.001). The maximum SBS was noted in the Panavia F2 group (10.84 ± 6.05 MPa) while the minimum SBS was noted in the Panavia V5 group (4.02 ± 2.87 MPa). Pairwise comparisons of the groups showed that the SBS of the Panavia V5 group was significantly lower than that of the Panavia F2 (P = 0.001) and zinc phosphate (P < 0.001) groups. No significant difference was noted in SBS of the Panavia F2 and zinc phosphate groups (P > 0.05). Evaluation of the samples by the video measuring machine revealed that the mode of failure was adhesive in all samples (between the PEEK surface and cement).
Table 2: Mean, standard deviation, and median of shear bond strength (megapascal) of samples cemented with different luting agents (n=5)

Click here to view

  Discussion Top

Bond failure at the cement-restoration interface is the most common cause of restoration failure, which can lead to development of secondary caries.[31] Thus, a durable and predictable bond between restoration and tooth structure can guarantee the function and long-term clinical service of restorations.[27] Although an effective bond to PEEK is a prerequisite for its application as a dental material in prosthesis,[17] limited information is available on the bond to PEEK and its durability using different cement types. Thus, this study aimed to measure the SBS of PEEK to different cement. The results showed that Panavia F2 resin cement yielded the highest, and Panavia V5 resin cement yielded the lowest SBS. However, samples cemented with RMGI did not bond to PEEK and were all debonded during thermocycling. Thus, the null hypothesis of the study regarding no significant effect of cement type on SBS to PEEK was rejected.

All bond strength tests have advantages and disadvantages, and no consensus has been reached on any test. However, the SBS test is the most common among all bond strength tests.[33] Tensile tests are also commonly used; however, they can lead to unequal stress distribution.[34] Moreover, sample preparation for tensile test is complex, and if not correctly controlled, torque stresses are generated which can decrease the bond strength.[34] On the other hand, very small samples should be used for microtensile test in order to obtain more uniform stress distribution.[35] Nonetheless, conduction of microtensile test is difficult and it is easily affected by different parameters.[34] Although conduction of microshear test is easier than the microtensile test, its superiority to conventional shear tests has not been confirmed.[36] Shear test is easily performed and is suitable for prediction of the function of dental materials.[34] On the other hand, it is believed that shear stresses comprise a major part of stresses involved in bond failure of restorative materials.[37]

The effect of thermocycling on bond strength of PEEK crowns with different surface treatments can predict the long-term clinical service of PEEK restorations.[6] Evidence shows that thermocycling is an appropriate method for simulation of thermal alterations that occur in the oral environment as the result of eating, drinking, and respiration.[38] Limited studies on the bond to PEEK have performed aging.[6],[26],[38] In this study, all samples were subjected to repeatable standardized stress. Aging was performed by thermocycling for 5000 cycles corresponding to 4–5 years of clinical service.[39] Many studies have assessed the surface treatments of PEEK, and they have all stated that surface treatment is imperative to enhance wettability and achieve an optimal bond to PEEK.[6],[9],[26],[27],[40] Although etching with 98% sulfuric acid yields the best results in achieving a durable bond,[27],[30],[40] it is highly corrosive and dangerous for chairside use in the clinical setting and cannot be the first choice for surface treatment prior to cementation.[27] A more common and safer method is to use a combination of sandblasting with 50–110 μm Al2O3 particles and application of adhesive systems containing methyl methacrylate,[26] which was employed in this study. Sandblasting increases the surface roughness and subsequently enhances the micromechanical interlocking of the cement.[9] Moreover, it completely removes the organic impurities from the material surface and cleans and activates the surface.[9] Visiolink adhesive was used for resin cement in this study, which contains pentaerythritol triacrylate, methyl methacrylate monomers, and dimethacrylates.[18] It is assumed that pentaerythritol triacrylate dissolves the surface of PEEK, and subsequently, methyl methacrylate monomers cause swelling of the dissolved surface, and eventually, dimethacrylate monomers result in bonding of composite resin to the two methyl groups.[41]

The mode of failure in this study was entirely adhesive, which is the most common mode of failure observed in the literature.[6],[9],[11],[27],[30] Tsuka et al. used Panavia V5 resin cement in their study for bonding to PEEK. They sandblasted the PEEK surface with AL2O3 particles. All failures were adhesive.[11] Song et al. assessed the bond strength of posts fabricated from PEEK. The samples that were treated with sandblasting and application of Visiolink and cemented with Panavia F2 mainly showed adhesive failure.[42] No similar study is available on the cement used in this study. On the other hand, comparison of bond strength values reported in studies would be difficult and inaccurate due to the variability in study designs, methodologies, surface treatments, cement types, and methods of assessment of bond strength.

In this study, the bond strength of samples cemented with Panavia F2 was significantly higher than that of Panavia V5. The only difference between these two cement is the presence of methacrylate monomers and phosphate groups in the composition of Panavia F2, which are not present in Panavia V5. The ceramic specific primer of Panavia V5 that contains MDP was not used in this study since its application has not been recommended in the cement manufacturers' instructions for PEEK, and only Visiolink was applied. MDP has a phosphoric acid group that forms optimal bond to ceramic oxides.[43] This may be the possible reason for higher bond strength of Panavia F2 to PEEK although MDP alone is not a key factor for optimal bonding to PEEK and some studies have questioned its efficacy.[9],[29] Factors such as the interaction effect of several adhesive components and their amount, viscosity, molecular weight, and penetration depth into PEEK are among other possible factors that affect the bond strength to PEEK.[26] An interesting finding of this study was related to zinc phosphate cement, which yielded the highest bond strength to PEEK after Panavia F2. This finding was in contrast to the results of other studies on other restorative materials[44],[45] and calls for further investigations regarding this cement and its interactions with PEEK. All samples bonded with RMGI cement were debonded during thermocycling, which indicates that RMGI is not a suitable cement for bonding to PEEK. This finding may be due to the presence of high amounts of hydroxyethylmethacrylate (HEMA) in its structure. HEMA is a mono-methacrylate, which according to the existing evidence, does not provide an optimal durable bond.[26] Evidence shows that restorations bonded with adhesives containing HEMA are more susceptible to water sorption and subsequent hydraulic degradation.[46]

Relatively small sample size and assessment of limited number of resin cement were among the limitations of this study. Moreover, this study had an in vitro design, which cannot perfectly simulate the clinical setting. Thus, generalization of results to the clinical setting is difficult. Long-term clinical studies are required on this topic.

  Conclusion Top

Within the limitations of this study, it may be concluded that Panavia F2, zinc phosphate, and Panavia V5 cement yielded the highest bond strength, in descending order. The SBS values of Panavia F2 resin cement and conventional zinc phosphate cement were not significantly different while the SBS of Panavia V5 resin cement was significantly lower than that of the other two cement. Therefore, in case of appropriate preparation of PEEK restorations according to the manufacturer's instructions, the conventional zinc phosphate cement can provide an acceptable bond comparable to that of Panavia F2 resin cement. The specimens cemented with RMGI were debonded during thermocycling; thus, RMGI cannot be suitable for bonding of PEEK restorations. Furthermore, the mode of failure was adhesive in all cement groups.


I would also like to thank Dr. Karim Jafari Kafash, for his advice and assistance in keeping my progress on schedule. My grateful thanks are also extended to Dr. Mohammad Ebrahim Ghaffari for his help in doing the meteorological data analysis.

Financial support and sponsorship

This study was supported by dental sciences research center of Guilan University of medical sciences [grant numbers IR.GUMS.REC.1397.126].

Conflicts of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare that they have no conflicts of interest, real or perceived, financial or nonfinancial in this article.

  References Top

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;109:845-53.  Back to cited text no. 1
Zeighami S, Mirmohammadrezaei S, Safi M, Falahchai SM. The effect of core and veneering design on the optical properties of polyether ether ketone. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2017;25:201-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
Najeeb S, Zafar MS, Khurshid Z, Siddiqui F. Applications of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in oral implantology and prosthodontics. J Prosthodont Res 2016;60:12-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
Sloan R, Hollis W, Selecman A, Jain V, Versluis A. Bond strength of lithium disilicate to polyetheretherketone. J Prosthet Dent DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.02.025 [Ahead of Print].  Back to cited text no. 4
Lieb ermann A, Wimmer T, Schmidlin PR, Scherer H, Löffler P, Roos M, et al. Physicomechanical characterization of polyetheretherketone and current esthetic dental CAD/CAM polymers after aging in different storage media. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:321-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
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. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e342-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
Heary RF, Parvathreddy N, Sampath S, Agarwal N. Elastic modulus in the selection of interbody implants. J Spine Surg 2017;3:163-7.  Back to cited text no. 7
Honigmann P, Sharma N, Schumacher R, Rueegg J, Haefeli M, Thieringer F. In-hospital 3D printed scaphoid prosthesis using medical-grade polyetheretherketone (PEEK) biomaterial. Biomed Res Int 2021;2021:1301028.  Back to cited text no. 8
Zhou L, Qian Y, Zhu Y, Liu H, Gan K, Guo J. The effect of different surface treatments on the bond strength of PEEK composite materials. Dent Mater 2014;30:e209-15.  Back to cited text no. 9
Küçükekenci AS, Dede DÖ, Kahveci Ç. Effect of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength of PAEKs to composite resin. J Adhes Sci Technol 2021;35:1-13.  Back to cited text no. 10
Tsuka H, Morita K, Kato K, Kawano H, Abekura H, Tsuga K. Evaluation of shear bond strength between PEEK and resin-based luting material. J Oral Biosci 2017;59:231-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
Diaz-Arnold AM, Vargas MA, Haselton DR. Current status of luting agents for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:135-41.  Back to cited text no. 12
Schwartz NL, Whitsett LD, Berry TG, Stewart JL. Unserviceable crowns and fixed partial dentures: Life-span and causes for loss of serviceability. J Am Dent Assoc 1970;81:1395-401.  Back to cited text no. 13
Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC, Sorensen JA. The shear bond strength between luting cements and zirconia ceramics after two pre-treatments. Oper Dent 2005;30:382-8.  Back to cited text no. 14
Burke FJ. The effect of variations in bonding procedure on fracture resistance of dentin-bonded all-ceramic crowns. Quintessence Int 1995;26:293-300.  Back to cited text no. 15
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. J Lasers Med Sci 2020;11:153-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
Qin L, Yao S, Zhao J, Zhou C, Oates TW, Weir MD, et al. Review on development and dental applications of polyetheretherketone-based biomaterials and restorations. Materials (Basel) 2021;14:408.  Back to cited text no. 17
Gouveia DD, 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). J Prosthet Dent 2021:X0022.  Back to cited text no. 18
Shimazu K, Karibe H, Ogata K. Effect of artificial saliva contamination on adhesion of dental restorative materials. Dent Mater J 2014;33:545-50.  Back to cited text no. 19
Hidalgo J, Baghernejad D, Falk A, Larsson C. The influence of two different cements on remaining cement excess in cement-retained implant-supported zirconia crowns. An in vitro study. BDJ Open 2021;7:5.  Back to cited text no. 20
Nematollahi F, Beyabanaki E, Alikhasi M. Cement selection for cement-retained implant-supported prostheses: A literature review. J Prosthodont 2016;25:599-606.  Back to cited text no. 21
Agar JR, Cameron SM, Hughbanks JC, Parker MH. Cement removal from restorations luted to titanium abutments with simulated subgingival margins. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:43-7.  Back to cited text no. 22
Derand T, Molin M, Kleven E, Haag P, Karlsson S. Bond strength of luting materials to ceramic crowns after different surface treatments. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2008;16:35-8.  Back to cited text no. 23
Palacios RP, Johnson GH, Phillips KM, Raigrodski AJ. Retention of zirconium oxide ceramic crowns with three types of cement. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:104-14.  Back to cited text no. 24
Söderholm KJ, Mondragon E, Garcea I. Use of zinc phosphate cement as a luting agent for Denzir™ copings: An in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2003;3:1.  Back to cited text no. 25
Lümkemann N, Strickstrock M, Eichberger M, Zylla IM, Stawarczyk B. Impact of air-abrasion pressure and adhesive systems on bonding parameters for polyetheretherketone dental restorations. Int J Adhes Adhes 2018;80:30-8.  Back to cited text no. 26
Sproesser O, Schmidlin PR, Uhrenbacher J, Roos M, Gernet W, Stawarczyk B. Effect of sulfuric acid etching of polyetheretherketone on the shear bond strength to resin cements. J Adhes Dent 2014;16:465-72.  Back to cited text no. 27
Lee KS, Shin MS, Lee JY, Ryu JJ, Shin SW. Shear bond strength of composite resin to high performance polymer PEKK according to surface treatments and bonding materials. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:350-7.  Back to cited text no. 28
Kern M, Lehmann F. Influence of surface conditioning on bonding to polyetheretherketon (PEEK). Dent Mater 2012;28:1280-3.  Back to cited text no. 29
Schmidlin PR, Stawarczyk B, Wieland M, Attin T, Hämmerle CH, Fischer J. Effect of different surface pre-treatments and luting materials on shear bond strength to PEEK. Dent Mater 2010;26:553-9.  Back to cited text no. 30
Sproesser O, Schmidlin PR, Uhrenbacher J, Eichberger M, Roos M, Stawarczyk B. Work of adhesion between resin composite cements and PEEK as a function of etching duration with sulfuric acid and its correlation with bond strength values. Int J Adhes Adhes 2014;54:184-90.  Back to cited text no. 31
Uhrenbacher J, Schmidlin PR, Keul C, Eichberger M, Roos M, Gernet W, et al. The effect of surface modification on the retention strength of polyetheretherketone crowns adhesively bonded to dentin abutments. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1489-97.  Back to cited text no. 32
Chen B, Yang L, Lu Z, Meng H, Wu X, Chen C, et al. Shear bond strength of zirconia to resin: The effects of specimen preparation and loading procedure. J Adv Prosthodont 2019;11:313-23.  Back to cited text no. 33
Ereifej N, Rodrigues FP, Silikas N, Watts DC. Experimental and FE shear-bonding strength at core/veneer interfaces in bilayered ceramics. Dent Mater 2011;27:590-7.  Back to cited text no. 34
Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ, Mecholsky JJ Jr. Failure analysis of resin composite bonded to ceramic. Dent Mater 2003;19:693-9.  Back to cited text no. 35
Placido E, Meira JB, Lima RG, Muench A, de Souza RM, Ballester RY. Shear versus micro-shear bond strength test: A finite element stress analysis. Dent Mater 2007;23:1086-92.  Back to cited text no. 36
Akin H, Tugut F, Akin GE, Guney U, Mutaf B. Effect of Er: YAG laser application on the shear bond strength and microleakage between resin cements and Y-TZP ceramics. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27:333-8.  Back to cited text no. 37
Stawarczyk B, Bähr N, Beuer F, Wimmer T, Eichberger M, Gernet W, et al. Influence of plasma pretreatment on shear bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to polyetheretherketone. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:163-70.  Back to cited text no. 38
Sadighpour L, Geramipanah F, Falahchai M, Tadbiri H. Marginal adaptation of three-unit interim restorations fabricated by the CAD-CA systems and the direct method before and after thermocycling. J Clin Exp Dent 2021;13:e572-9.  Back to cited text no. 39
Dede DÖ, Ercan UK, Küçükekenci AS, Kahveci Ç, Özdemir GD, Bağış B. Influence of non-thermal plasma systems and two favorable surface treatments on the shear bond strength of PAEKs to composite resin. J Adhes Sci Technol 2021;35:1-14.  Back to cited text no. 40
Keul C, Liebermann A, Schmidlin PR, Roos M, Sener B, Stawarczyk B. Influence of PEEK surface modification on surface properties and bond strength to veneering resin composites. J Adhes Dent 2014;16:383-92.  Back to cited text no. 41
Song CH, Choi JW, Jeon YC, Jeong CM, Lee SH, Kang ES, et al. Comparison of the microtensile bond strength of a polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) tooth post cemented with various surface treatments and various resin cements. Materials (Basel) 2018;11:E916.  Back to cited text no. 42
Tokunaga E, Nagaoka N, Maruo Y, Yoshihara K, Nishigawa G, Minagi S. Phosphate group adsorption capacity of inorganic elements affects bond strength between CAD/CAM composite block and luting agent. Dent Mater J 2021;40:288-96.  Back to cited text no. 43
Ehlers V, Kampf G, Stender E, Willershausen B, Ernst CP. Effect of thermocycling with or without 1 year of water storage on retentive strengths of luting cements for zirconia crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:609-15.  Back to cited text no. 44
Shahin R, Kern M. Effect of air-abrasion on the retention of zirconia ceramic crowns luted with different cements before and after artificial aging. Dent Mater 2010;26:922-8.  Back to cited text no. 45
Bacelar-Sá R, Giannini M, Ambrosano GM, Bedran-Russo AK. Dentin sealing and bond strength evaluation of hema-free and multi-mode adhesives to biomodified dentin. Braz Dent J 2017;28:731-7.  Back to cited text no. 46


  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]

  [Table 1], [Table 2]


Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
Materials and Me...
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded158    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal