Next Article in Journal
Atomistic Simulation of Flow-Induced Microphase Separation and Crystallization of an Entangled Polyethylene Melt Undergoing Uniaxial Elongational Flow and the Role of Kuhn Segment Extension
Next Article in Special Issue
Process Parameter Prediction for Fused Deposition Modeling Using Invertible Neural Networks
Previous Article in Journal
Analytics in Extrusion-Based Bioprinting: Standardized Methods Improving Quantification and Comparability of the Performance of Bioinks
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Automotive Test Parameters on Dry Friction Fiber-Reinforced Clutch Facing Surface Microgeometry and Wear—Part 3 Tribological Parameter Correlations and Simulation of Thermo-Mechanical Tribological Contact Behavior
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Polymers
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/polym15081830
polymers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Bond Strength of Sandblasted PEEK with Dental Methyl Methacrylate-Based Cement or Composite-Based Resin Cement

by
Kentaro Hata
1,2,
Yuya Komagata
1,
Yuki Nagamatsu
1,
Chihiro Masaki
2,
Ryuji Hosokawa
2 and
Hiroshi Ikeda
1,*
1
Division of Biomaterials, Department of Oral Functions, Kyushu Dental University, Kitakyushu 803-8580, Japan
2
Division of Oral Reconstruction and Rehabilitation, Department of Oral Functions, Kyushu Dental University, Kitakyushu 803-8580, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2023, 15(8), 1830; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15081830
Submission received: 28 February 2023 / Revised: 7 April 2023 / Accepted: 8 April 2023 / Published: 9 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in the Mechanical Behavior of Polymeric Materials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) is commonly employed in dental prostheses owing to its excellent mechanical properties; however, it is limited by its low bond strength with dental resin cement. This study aimed to clarify the type of resin cement most suitable for bonding to PEEK: methyl methacrylate (MMA)-based resin cement or composite-based resin cement. For this purpose, two MMA-based resin cements (Super-Bond EX and MULTIBOND II) and five composite-based resin cements (Block HC Cem, RelyX Universal Resin Cement, G-CEM LinkForce, Panavia V5, and Multilink Automix) were used in combination with appropriate adhesive primers. A PEEK block (SHOFU PEEK) was initially cut, polished, and sandblasted with alumina. The sandblasted PEEK was then bonded to resin cement with adhesive primer according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The resulting specimens were immersed in water at 37 °C for 24 h, followed by thermocycling. Subsequently, the tensile bond strengths (TBSs) of the specimens were measured; the TBSs of the composite-based resin cements after thermocycling were found to be zero (G-CEM LinkForce, Panavia V5, and Multilink Automix), 0.03 ± 0.04 (RelyX Universal Resin Cement), or 1.6 ± 2.7 (Block HC Cem), whereas those of Super-Bond and MULTIBOND were 11.9 ± 2.6 and 4.8 ± 2.3 MPa, respectively. The results demonstrated that MMA-based resin cements exhibited stronger bonding to PEEK than composite-based resin cements.

1. Introduction

Poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) is widely used as an engineering plastic in industry because of its superior mechanical strength, fatigue resistance, chemical durability, temperature resistance, and dimensional stability under harsh conditions. In the dental field, owing to its excellent biocompatibility and outstanding properties [1], PEEK has received significant research interest for use in dental implants [2], implant abutments [3], removable dentures [4], crowns [5], posts and cores [6], prostheses [7], orthodontic wires [8], and occlusal splints [9].
Despite its desirable properties, the appearance of PEEK is significantly different from that of natural teeth owing to its opacity and greyish pearly white color. When preparing a PEEK prosthesis, the color of the PEEK must be shielded by veneering with resin-based adhesive, which requires the use of adhesives. In fixed dental prostheses, PEEK is bonded onto the abutment teeth using an adhesive, which means that durable bonding between PEEK and the adhesive is indispensable to ensure that the prosthesis is stable over numerous years. However, the chemically inert nature and low surface energy of PEEK render adhesive bonding difficult. Thus, various surface-modification methods have been investigated to overcome these problems [8]. For example, alumina sandblasting (alumina airborne particle abrasion) can mechanically roughen the PEEK surface to increase the surface area, resulting in an improved bond strength [10,11,12].
Furthermore, plasma treatment using helium, argon, nitrogen, and oxygen gases can remove thin layers of the PEEK substrate, which also removes contaminants and modifies the functional groups of the PEEK surface to increase its wettability [13,14,15]. A laser abrasion induces microgrooves on the PEEK surface to ensure the mechanical retention of luting agents [16,17,18]. Acid etching causes surface topographical changes and provides a microinterlocking structure on the surface [6,19,20]. For example, etching with 98% sulfuric acid can create a porous surface structure wherein an adhesive penetrates, leading to significantly improved bond strength [21,22,23]. Overall, there is a consensus that alumina sandblasting and sulfuric acid etching are effective surface pretreatment methods for improving PEEK adhesion [24]. However, the use of such a high concentration of sulfuric acid is undesirable due to its toxicity and the risks associated with damage to the oral tissue [25,26]. Thus, considering its safety, versatility, and usability, alumina sandblasting is considered the most suitable technique for the surface pretreatment of PEEK.
In addition to the use of chemical, physical, and mechanical approaches to increase the bond strength between PEEK and an adhesive, the adhesive system itself is partly responsible for determining the resulting bond strength. For instance, the combination of an adhesive primer and resin cement has been demonstrated as a reliable adhesive system for bonding PEEK [6,27], wherein methyl methacrylate (MMA)-containing adhesive primers are particularly effective for bonding PEEK to resin cement [27,28]. Previous studies have reported that two MMA-containing primers, namely Visio.link and Signum PEEK Bond, can improve the bond strength of PEEK [6,29,30]. More specifically, alumina sandblasting followed by the application of an MMA-containing primer significantly increases the bond strength between PEEK and resin cement [12]. Similarly, alumina sandblasting and the application of an MMA-containing primer significantly improve the adhesion of PEEK crowns [31]. Furthermore, several resin cements have been investigated to improve the bond strength with PEEK [24], although the optimal resin cement system has yet to be identified.
The purpose of this study is to clarify the bonding performance of dental resin cement to sandblasted PEEK. Thus, the tensile bond strength (TBS) is investigated using two MMA-based resin cements and five composite-based resin cements. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the TBSs of MMA-based resin cements and composite-based resin cements in the context of PEEK bonding.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Details regarding the PEEK blocks, resin cements, and primers used in this study are listed in Table 1. The PEEK block was cut to a thickness of 4 mm using a diamond wheel saw and was polished using emery paper #600. The polished PEEK surface was sandblasted at 0.2 MPa with 50 μm alumina particles using an airborne particle abrader (Jet Blast II, J. Morita, Suita, Japan). The surface morphology of the PEEK was observed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM; S-4300, Hitachi High-Tech, Tokyo, Japan). The obtained sandblasted PEEK was used for all subsequent experiments.

2.2. Tensile Bond Strength (TBS) Test

A flowchart of the tensile bond strength test is shown in Figure 1. For bonding with the sandblasted PEEK, each resin cement was used in combination with the adhesive primer provided by the same manufacturer, as listed in Table 2. Initially, the PEEK surface was covered with masking tape containing a 4.8 mm diameter hole to regulate the bonding area. The adhesive primer was applied to the masked PEEK surface according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The resin cement was then loaded onto the primed PEEK surface and bonded to an alumina-sandblasted stainless-steel rod. The bonded specimen was maintained under ambient conditions at 25 °C for 30 min to cure the resin cement and was subsequently immersed in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h. The specimen was subjected to a thermocycling process for 20,000 cycles, which was conducted by alternating immersion in water baths at temperatures of 5 and 55 °C with a dwell time of 20 s in each bath. The resulting specimens (n = 10 per group) were used to carry out the TBS tests. The TBS between the resin cement and the PEEK sample was measured by a conventional TBS test procedure [32] using a universal testing machine (AGS-H, Shimadzu., Kyoto, Japan) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The maximum force was measured when the cement/PEEK interface was debonded. The TBS was calculated by dividing the maximum force by the adhesive area. After the TBS test, each debonded PEEK surface was observed by SEM to determine its failure mode. The failure modes were classified into three types, namely, adhesive failure at the PEEK/cement interface, cohesive failure within the cement, and mixed adhesive and cohesive failures.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The TBS data were analyzed using EZR statistical software (EZR version 1.61, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama, Japan). Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate the significant influences of the resin cement and the thermocycling process. A subgroup analysis was also performed using Tukey’s test for multiple comparisons of the different resin cement groups. In addition, Student’s t-test was used to determine the effect of thermocycling on each group. The significance level was set to p < 0.05 for all results.

3. Results

Preparation of the Alumina-Sandblasted PEEK

Alumina sandblasting was employed to roughen the surface of the PEEK and increase the surface area available for adhesive bonding. As shown in Figure 2, numerous microgrooves were introduced into the surface structure via sandblasting.
Table 3 lists the results of the two-way ANOVA carried out for the obtained TBS results. As indicated, both factors, namely, the “resin cement” and the “thermocycling” factors, had statistically significant effects on the TBS (p < 0.001); the interaction between these factors was also statistically significant (p < 0.001).
As can be seen from Figure 3, the TBS was clearly influenced by the type of resin cement employed. Upon comparison among the non-thermocycled groups (TC0), the TBSs obtained for the MMA-based resin cements (SB and MB) were significantly higher than those for the composite-based resin cements (BH, RU, GL, PV, and MA). Following thermocycling (TC20,000), the TBSs of the composite-based resin cements of the GL, PV, and MA groups were zero, suggesting that the bond strengths were extremely low, resulting in debonding of the cements during thermocycling. For the MMA-based resin cements (SB and MB), the TBS obtained for the SB group after thermocycling was significantly higher than that of the MB group. In addition, the TBS obtained for the SB group was found to remain constant after thermocycling, whereas that of the MB group decreased significantly.
The failure modes of the various groups were then determined, and are listed in Table 4. For the composite-based resin cements (RU, GL, PV, and MA), only adhesive failure was observed in all samples, with the exception of the BH group. In contrast, mixed failures were observed for the MMA-based resin cements (SB and MB). These results imply that the MMA-based resin cements bonded more strongly to PEEK than the composite-based resin cements.

4. Discussion

Contemporary resin cements can be classified into two groups, MMA-based and composite-based, according to their material composition. The main components of the former resin cement are MMA and PMMA, and the composite-based resin cement is made of a composite of a resin matrix and ceramic particles (fillers). Due to the differences in their compositions, the bonding properties of the MMA-based and composite-based resin cements as restorative materials are different. This study aimed to reveal the bonding behaviors of the resin cements to PEEK. The TBS tests were conducted using two commercial MMA-based resin cements and five composite-based resin cements to determine the type of adhesive system that exhibited the strongest bonding with PEEK. The obtained results revealed that the TBSs of the MMA-based resin cements were significantly higher than those of the composite-based resin cements. Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the TBSs of MMA-based resin cements and composite-based resin cements in PEEK bonding was rejected.
To estimate the bonding durability, the specimens were subjected to 20,000 thermocycles. These conditions imitate the temperature fluctuations that occur in the oral cavity, corresponding to an in vivo time of 2 years [33]. During thermocycling, water penetrates the cement/PEEK interface and deteriorates the bonding via hydrolysis. As a result, almost all resin cement groups showed a reduced TBS after thermocycling. More specifically, in the composite-based resin cement groups, the TBSs decreased to approximately zero following thermocycling, implying that the bonding of the resin cement to PEEK would be lost within 2 years in the oral environment. Furthermore, some samples from the RU, GL, PV, and MA groups exhibited debonding during thermocycling, suggesting that composite-based resin cements debond from PEEK in oral environments within a short period of time.
Adhesive primers are known to play an important role in enhancing the bond strengths between restorative materials and resin cements. In the case of commercial adhesive primers, these materials contain organic solvents and several functional monomers that chemically react with both the resin cement and restorative material surface [34]. The adhesive primers used in the current study contain one or more of the following functional monomers: MDP, γ-MPTS, 4-META, MTU-6, or VTD (VBATDT). Notably, each of these functional monomers can adhere to a specific material surface depending on the chemical structure. More specifically, MDP binds preferentially to zirconia and titanium [35], γ-MPTS binds to silica-based glass ceramics and silica-containing resin composites [36], 4-META is preferred for base metal alloys [37], and MTU-6 and VTD bind preferentially to noble metals [38]. However, these functional monomers are considered ineffective for PEEK bonding, as confirmed by the obtained experimental results, wherein the TBSs of the composite-based adhesive systems were close to zero (Figure 3); adhesion of the functional monomers to the PEEK surface would have led to increased TBSs. As PEEK is an aromatic, semi-crystalline, and chemically stable linear thermoplastic polymer [39], it contains no surface sites that can react with the functional monomers present in the adhesive primer. Indeed, no effective functional monomers have been reported for combination with PEEK in dental applications; this study was also unable to identify an effective functional monomer for PEEK bonding. Systematic experiments are therefore required to identify appropriate functional monomers for PEEK bonding to resin cement.
The TBS results suggested that the MMA-based resin cements provided better bonding to the sandblasted PEEK than the composite-based resin cements. Two possible explanations were considered for this observation. First, it was considered that a semi-interpenetrating polymer network (semi-IPN) structure [40,41,42,43] formed at the cement/PEEK interface. This semi-IPN structure consists of a macromolecular-level polymer blend, in which the polymer chains of the linear polymer penetrate another polymer network. In dental materials, a semi-IPN structure can be found at the interfaces between PMMA-based and resin-based materials, which significantly improves the bond strength between the two materials [40,41,42,43]. It was therefore speculated that the relatively small MMA molecules present in the MMA-based resin cements can penetrate the interspaces between the polymer chains, resulting in interlocking between the polymers, generating PMMA and forming a semi-IPN structure at the interface. This IPN structure contributes to enhancing the TBS between the MMA-based resin cement and PEEK. In contrast, composite-based resin cements typically contain relatively large molecules, such as TEGDMA and UDMA, and as a result, they are generally unable to penetrate the spaces between the PEEK molecules, and an IPN structure cannot be formed. In terms of the second possible explanation for the described observations, the wettability of the resin cement can be considered. As the sandblasted PEEK surfaces contain numerous grooves of various depths and sizes (Figure 2), the relatively low viscosity of the MMA-based resin cement allows it to infiltrate the narrow grooves on the PEEK surface. The penetrated MMA can then become cured to form PMMA, leading to mechanical interlocking at the cement/PEEK interface. In contrast, composite-based resin cements contain numerous ceramic fillers (particles), and these fillers are unable to infiltrate the narrow grooves on the PEEK surface, and so mechanical interlocking is unlikely to occur at the composite-based resin cement/PEEK interface.
Based on the results of the above in vitro experiments, MMA-based resin cements are apparently superior for bonding to alumina-sandblasted PEEK. However, even when the MMA-based resin cements are employed, the bond strength toward PEEK may degrade over time in the oral environment. Indeed, the actual oral environment is considered to be harsher than that simulated by the current in vitro conditions, due to the presence of occlusal forces, pH fluctuations, and other unfavorable factors. Further clinical studies are therefore required to clarify the effectiveness of MMA-based resin cements for PEEK bonding.

5. Conclusions

The bond strength between dental MMA-based resin cement or composite-based resin cement and the sandblasted PEEK was investigated by means of a tensile bond strength test, to determine the superior resin cement for durable bonding. The TBSs of the composite-based resin cements after thermocycling were found to be ≤2 MPa, whereas those of MMA-based resin cements (Super-Bond and MULTIBOND) were 11.9 ± 2.6 and 4.8 ± 2.3 MPa, respectively. The tensile bond strengths for the MMA-based resin cement were significantly higher than those of the composite-based resin cements. Within the limitations of the study, it was found that MMA-based resin cements are suitable to bond with PEEK for dental restoration.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.I. and K.H.; data curation, K.H. and H.I.; formal analysis, K.H. and C.M.; funding acquisition, K.H. and H.I.; investigation, K.H., Y.K., and Y.N.; methodology, K.H. and Y.K.; project administration, H.I.; resources, K.H. and C.M.; software, K.H. and Y.N.; supervision, H.I.; validation, K.H., H.I., and R.H.; visualization, Y.K. and R.H.; writing—original draft, K.H., H.I., and Y.N.; writing—review and editing, C.M. and R.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by JSPS KAKENHI (grant number 22K21068).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Senra, M.R.; Marques, M.F.V.; Monteiro, S.N. Poly (Ether-Ether-Ketone) for Biomedical Applications: From Enhancing Bioactivity to Reinforced-Bioactive Composites-An Overview. Polymers 2023, 15, 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Han, X.; Gao, W.; Zhou, Z.; Yang, S.; Wang, J.; Shi, R.; Li, Y.; Jiao, J.; Qi, Y.; Zhao, J. Application of biomolecules modification strategies on PEEK and its composites for osteogenesis and antibacterial properties. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2022, 215, 112492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Chokaree, P.; Poovarodom, P.; Chaijareenont, P.; Yavirach, A.; Rungsiyakull, P. Biomaterials and Clinical Applications of Customized Healing Abutment-A Narrative Review. J. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 13, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Liu, Y.; Fang, M.; Zhao, R.; Liu, H.; Li, K.; Tian, M.; Niu, L.; Xie, R.; Bai, S. Clinical Applications of Polyetheretherketone in Removable Dental Prostheses: Accuracy, Characteristics, and Performance. Polymers 2022, 14, 4615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kimura, H.; Morita, K.; Nishio, F.; Abekura, H.; Tsuga, K. Clinical report of six-month follow-up after cementing PEEK crown on molars. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 19070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Wang, B.; Huang, M.; Dang, P.; Xie, J.; Zhang, X.; Yan, X. PEEK in Fixed Dental Prostheses: Application and Adhesion Improvement. Polymers 2022, 14, 2323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gama, L.T.; Bezerra, A.P.; Schimmel, M.; Rodrigues Garcia, R.C.M.; de Luca Canto, G.; Goncalves, T. Clinical performance of polymer frameworks in dental prostheses: A systematic review. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Qin, L.; Yao, S.; Zhao, J.; Zhou, C.; Oates, T.W.; Weir, M.D.; Wu, J.; Xu, H.H.K. Review on Development and Dental Applications of Polyetheretherketone-Based Biomaterials and Restorations. Materials 2021, 14, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, S.; Li, Z.; Ye, H.; Zhao, W.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, Y. Preliminary clinical evaluation of traditional and a new digital PEEK occlusal splints for the management of sleep bruxism. J. Oral Rehabil. 2020, 47, 1530–1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rosentritt, M.; Preis, V.; Behr, M.; Sereno, N.; Kolbeck, C. Shear bond strength between veneering composite and PEEK after different surface modifications. Clin. Oral Investig. 2015, 19, 739–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stawarczyk, B.; Taufall, S.; Roos, M.; Schmidlin, P.R.; Lumkemann, N. Bonding of composite resins to PEEK: The influence of adhesive systems and air-abrasion parameters. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018, 22, 763–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Caglar, I.; Ates, S.M.; 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–e349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Schwitalla, A.D.; Botel, F.; Zimmermann, T.; Sutel, M.; Muller, W.D. The impact of argon/oxygen low-pressure plasma on shear bond strength between a veneering composite and different PEEK materials. Dent. Mater. 2017, 33, 990–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Younis, M.; Unkovskiy, A.; ElAyouti, A.; Geis-Gerstorfer, J.; Spintzyk, S. The Effect of Various Plasma Gases on the Shear Bond Strength between Unfilled Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and Veneering Composite Following Artificial Aging. Materials 2019, 12, 1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. 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. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2022, 127, 599.e1–599.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. 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, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Tsuka, H.; Morita, K.; Kato, K.; Kimura, H.; Abekura, H.; Hirata, I.; Kato, K.; Tsuga, K. Effect of laser groove treatment on shear bond strength of resin-based luting agent to polyetheretherketone (PEEK). J. Prosthodont. Res. 2019, 63, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Kimura, H.; Tsuka, H.; Morita, K.; Hirata, I.; Nishio, F.; Abekura, H.; Doi, K.; Tsuga, K. Nd: YVO(4) laser groove treatment can improve the shear bond strength between dental PEEK and adhesive resin cement with an adhesive system. Dent. Mater. J. 2022, 41, 382–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. 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–e215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Keul, C.; Liebermann, A.; Schmidlin, P.R.; 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, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chaijareenont, P.; Prakhamsai, S.; Silthampitag, P.; Takahashi, H.; Arksornnukit, M. Effects of different sulfuric acid etching concentrations on PEEK surface bonding to resin composite. Dent. Mater. J. 2018, 37, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Zhang, J.; Yi, Y.; Wang, C.; Ding, L.; Wang, R.; Wu, G. Effect of Acid-Etching Duration on the Adhesive Performance of Printed Polyetheretherketone to Veneering Resin. Polymers 2021, 13, 3509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Adem, N.; Bal, B.; Kazazoglu, E. Comparative Study of Chemical and Mechanical Surface Treatment Effects on The Shear Bond Strength of Polyether-Ether-Ketone to Veneering Resin. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2022, 35, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Soares Machado, P.; Cadore Rodrigues, A.C.; Chaves, E.T.; Susin, A.H.; Valandro, L.F.; Pereira, G.K.R.; Rippe, M.P. Surface Treatments and Adhesives Used to Increase the Bond Strength Between Polyetheretherketone and Resin-based Dental Materials: A Scoping Review. J. Adhes. Dent. 2022, 24, 233–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Zhao, Y.; Wong, H.M.; Wang, W.; Li, P.; Xu, Z.; Chong, E.Y.; Yan, C.H.; Yeung, K.W.; Chu, P.K. Cytocompatibility, osseointegration, and bioactivity of three-dimensional porous and nanostructured network on polyetheretherketone. Biomaterials 2013, 34, 9264–9277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ma, R.; Wang, J.; Li, C.; Ma, K.; Wei, J.; Yang, P.; Guo, D.; Wang, K.; Wang, W. Effects of different sulfonation times and post-treatment methods on the characterization and cytocompatibility of sulfonated PEEK. J. Biomater. Appl. 2020, 35, 342–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Luo, C.; Liu, Y.; Peng, B.; Chen, M.; Liu, Z.; Li, Z.; Kuang, H.; Gong, B.; Li, Z.; Sun, H. PEEK for Oral Applications: Recent Advances in Mechanical and Adhesive Properties. Polymers 2023, 15, 386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Gama, L.T.; Duque, T.M.; Ozcan, M.; Philippi, A.G.; Mezzomo, L.A.M.; Goncalves, T. Adhesion to high-performance polymers applied in dentistry: A systematic review. Dent. Mater. 2020, 36, e93–e108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Stawarczyk, B.; Keul, C.; Beuer, F.; Roos, M.; Schmidlin, P.R. Tensile bond strength of veneering resins to PEEK: Impact of different adhesives. Dent. Mater. J. 2013, 32, 441–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Stawarczyk, B.; Bahr, N.; Beuer, F.; Wimmer, T.; Eichberger, M.; Gernet, W.; Jahn, D.; Schmidlin, P.R. Influence of plasma pretreatment on shear bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to polyetheretherketone. Clin. Oral Investig. 2014, 18, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Uhrenbacher, J.; Schmidlin, P.R.; Keul, C.; Eichberger, M.; Roos, M.; Gernet, W.; Stawarczyk, B. The effect of surface modification on the retention strength of polyetheretherketone crowns adhesively bonded to dentin abutments. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2014, 112, 1489–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ikeda, H.; Karntiang, P.; Nagamatsu, Y.; Shimizu, H. Data on bond strength of methyl methacrylate-based resin cement to dental restorative materials. Data Brief 2020, 33, 106426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Galea, M.S.; Darvell, B.W. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J. Dent. 1999, 27, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Cadenaro, M.; Josic, U.; Maravic, T.; Mazzitelli, C.; Marchesi, G.; Mancuso, E.; Breschi, L.; Mazzoni, A. Progress in Dental Adhesive Materials. J. Dent. Res. 2023, 102, 254–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Carvalho, P.C.K.; Almeida, C.; Souza, R.O.A.; Tango, R.N. The Effect of a 10-MDP-Based Dentin Adhesive as Alternative for Bonding to Implant Abutment Materials. Materials 2022, 15, 5449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Matinlinna, J.P.; Lung, C.Y.K.; Tsoi, J.K.H. Silane adhesion mechanism in dental applications and surface treatments: A review. Dent. Mater. 2018, 34, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Givan, D.A.; Fitchie, J.G.; Anderson, L.; Zardiackas, L.D. Tensile fatigue of 4-META cement bonding three base metal alloys to enamel and comparison to other resin cements. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1995, 73, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shimizu, H.; Takahashi, Y. Review of adhesive techniques used in removable prosthodontic practice. J. Oral Sci. 2012, 54, 205–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Hallmann, L.; Mehl, A.; Sereno, N.; Hämmerle, C.H.F. The improvement of adhesive properties of PEEK through different pre-treatments. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2012, 258, 7213–7218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vallittu, P.K. Interpenetrating polymer networks (IPNs) in dental polymers and composites. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2009, 23, 961–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kawaguchi, T.; Lassila, L.V.; Tokue, A.; Takahashi, Y.; Vallittu, P.K. Influence of molecular weight of polymethyl(methacrylate) beads on the properties and structure of cross-linked denture base polymer. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2011, 4, 1846–1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Munshi, N.; Rosenblum, M.; Jiang, S.; Flinton, R. In Vitro Wear Resistance of Nano-Hybrid Composite Denture Teeth. J. Prosthodont. 2017, 26, 224–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hatta, M.; Shinya, A.; Gomi, H.; Vallittu, P.K.; Sailynoja, E.; Lassila, L.V.J. Effect of Interpenetrating Polymer Network (IPN) Thermoplastic Resin on Flexural Strength of Fibre-Reinforced Composite and the Penetration of Bonding Resin into Semi-IPN FRC Post. Polymers 2021, 13, 3200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Polymers 15 01830 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of tensile bond strength test.
Figure 1. Flowchart of tensile bond strength test.
Polymers 15 01830 g001
Polymers 15 01830 g002 550
Figure 2. SEM images for the PEEK surfaces: (a) surface polished using emery paper and (b) alumina-sandblasted surface.
Figure 2. SEM images for the PEEK surfaces: (a) surface polished using emery paper and (b) alumina-sandblasted surface.
Polymers 15 01830 g002
Polymers 15 01830 g003 550
Figure 3. Mean and standard deviations of the TBSs of the various experimental groups. Different uppercase and lowercase letters represent statistically significant differences among the non-thermocycled (TC0) and thermocycled (TC20,000) groups, respectively. An asterisk indicates a statistical difference between the TBSs for the TC0 and TC20,000 groups for the same resin cement.
Figure 3. Mean and standard deviations of the TBSs of the various experimental groups. Different uppercase and lowercase letters represent statistically significant differences among the non-thermocycled (TC0) and thermocycled (TC20,000) groups, respectively. An asterisk indicates a statistical difference between the TBSs for the TC0 and TC20,000 groups for the same resin cement.
Polymers 15 01830 g003
Table
Table 1. Materials used in the current study. The material compositions are based on the information provided by the respective manufacturers.
Table 1. Materials used in the current study. The material compositions are based on the information provided by the respective manufacturers.
Material TypeProduct NameManufacturerComposition
PEEK blockSHOFU PEEKShofu, Kyoto, JapanPoly-ether-ether-ketone
MMA-based
resin cement		Super-Bond EX *Sunmedical, Moriyama, Japa MMA, PMMA, 4-META, TBB-O
MULTIBOND IITokuyama Dental, Tokyo, Japan PMMA, co-activator, MMA, UDMA, HEMA, MTU-6, borate catalyst.
Composite-based
resin cement		Block HC CemShofu, Kyoto, JapanUDMA, TEGDMA, silica powder, fine particulate silica, zirconium silicate, colorant.
RelyX Universal Resin Cement3M, Saint Paul, USAMethacrylate, silica, glass powder, co-activator.
G-CEM LinkForceGC, Tokyo, JapanUDMA, dimethacrylate, stabilizer.
Panavia V5Kuraray Noritake Dental, Tokyo, JapanBis-GMA, TEGDMA, titanium dioxide.
Multilink AutomixIvoclar Vivadent, Schaan, LiechtensteinYtterbium trifluoride, ethyoxylated Bis-GMA, Bis-GMA, HEMA, 2-dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate.
Adhesive primerM&C PrimerSunmedical, Moriyama, JapanPrimer A: MDP, VTD, MMA, acetone;
Primer B: γ-MPTS, MMA.
BONDMER LightlessTokuyama Dental, Tokyo, JapanPrimer A: MDP, MTU-6, Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, HEMA, acetone;
Primer B: γ-MPTS, isopropanol, water, initiators, acetone.
MULTIBOND II PrimerTokuyama Dental, Tokyo, JapanPhosphoric acid monomer, water, acetone, UDMA, co-activator.
HC PrimerShofu, Kyoto, JapanUDMA, MMA, photo-initiator, acetone, and others.
Scotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive3M, Saint Paul, USAPhosphoric acid ester monomer, methacrylate, co-activator, ethanol.
G-Multi PRIMERGC, Tokyo, JapaEthanol, phosphoric acid ester monomer, dimethacrylate component.
CERAMIC PRIMER PLUSKurary Noritake Dental, Tokyo, JapanEthanol, γ-MPTS, MDP.
Monobond PlusIvoclar Vivadent, Schaan, LiechtensteinEthanol, methacrylated phosphoric acid ester.
MMA: methyl methacrylate, 4-MEMA: 4-methacryloxyethyl trimellitic anhydride, UDMA: urethane dimethacrylate, TBB-O: partially oxidized tri-n-butyl borane, Bis-GMA: bisphenol A diglycidyl-methacrylate, TEGDMA: triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, HEMA: 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, MDP: 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate, γ-MPTS: 3-methacryloxypropyl trimethoxy silane, VTD (VBATDT): 6-(4-vinylbenzyl-n-propyl)amino-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-dithione. * Trade name in Europe: Super-Bond Universal.
Table
Table 2. Combinations of the resin cements and primers used for PEEK bonding.
Table 2. Combinations of the resin cements and primers used for PEEK bonding.
Adhesive SystemResin CementPrimerGroup
MMA-based resin cementSuper-Bond EXM&C PrimerSB
MULTIBOND IIBONDMER Lightless and
MULTIBOND II primer		MB
Composite-based resin cementBlock HC CemHC PrimerBH
RelyX Universal Resin CementScotchbond Universal Plus AdhesiveRU
G-CEM LinkForceG-Multi PRIMERGL
Panavia V5CERAMIC PRIMER PLUSPV
Multilink AutomixMonobond PlusMA
Table
Table 3. Results of the two-way ANOVA carried out for the TBS results between PEEK and each resin cement, both with and without thermocycling.
Table 3. Results of the two-way ANOVA carried out for the TBS results between PEEK and each resin cement, both with and without thermocycling.
Sum of SquareDfF Valuep Value
Resin cement2767.596146.5685<0.001
Thermocycling51.36116.3213<0.001
Resin cement * thermocycling88.6064.6921<0.001
Table
Table 4. Failure modes of the various experimental groups in the TBS tests.
Table 4. Failure modes of the various experimental groups in the TBS tests.
Adhesive/Mixed/Cohesive *
GroupTC0TC20,000
SB2/8/00/10/0
MB9/1/06/4/0
BH8/2/08/2/0
RU10/0/010/0/0
GL10/0/010/0/0
PV10/0/010/0/0
MA10/0/010/0/0
* Adhesive: adhesive failure at the PEEK–cement interface. Cohesive: cohesive failure within cement. Mixed: mixed failure of adhesive and cohesive.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hata, K.; Komagata, Y.; Nagamatsu, Y.; Masaki, C.; Hosokawa, R.; Ikeda, H. Bond Strength of Sandblasted PEEK with Dental Methyl Methacrylate-Based Cement or Composite-Based Resin Cement. Polymers 2023, 15, 1830. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15081830

AMA Style

Hata K, Komagata Y, Nagamatsu Y, Masaki C, Hosokawa R, Ikeda H. Bond Strength of Sandblasted PEEK with Dental Methyl Methacrylate-Based Cement or Composite-Based Resin Cement. Polymers. 2023; 15(8):1830. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15081830

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hata, Kentaro, Yuya Komagata, Yuki Nagamatsu, Chihiro Masaki, Ryuji Hosokawa, and Hiroshi Ikeda. 2023. "Bond Strength of Sandblasted PEEK with Dental Methyl Methacrylate-Based Cement or Composite-Based Resin Cement" Polymers 15, no. 8: 1830. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15081830

APA Style

Hata, K., Komagata, Y., Nagamatsu, Y., Masaki, C., Hosokawa, R., & Ikeda, H. (2023). Bond Strength of Sandblasted PEEK with Dental Methyl Methacrylate-Based Cement or Composite-Based Resin Cement. Polymers, 15(8), 1830. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15081830

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop