ArticleBMC oral health2024
Comparison of the shear bond strengths of two different polyetheretherketone (PEEK) framework materials and CAD-CAM veneer materials.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluation of adhesion strength of pure PEEK and glass reinforced PEEK with titanium using different bonding methods- a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Advances in Chairside and Restorative Dental Materials: A Systematic Review of Material Properties, Adhesive Strategies, and Long-Term Performance.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Effects of chemical surface treatments on the shear bond strength between polyetheretherketone and veneering composite resin: An in vitro study.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 2026Article
- Effect of surface treatments on the shear bond strength of PAEK polymers to composite resin: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of Argon Plasma and Sandblasting on Bond Strength of PEEK and PEKK to Resin Cement.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated the shear bond strength (SBS) of two different polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and CAD-CAM materials after aging.
methodsA total of 42 frameworks were designed and milled from 2 different PEEK discs (Copra Peek, P and BioHPP, B). P and B frameworks were divided into 3 subgroups (n = 7). 14 slices were prepared each from feldspathic ceramic (Vitablocs Mark II, VM), hybrid nanoceramic (Cerasmart, CS), and polymer-infiltrated ceramic (Vita Enamic, VE) blocks. After surface preparations, the slices were cemented to P and B surfaces. The samples were subjected to thermal aging (5000 cycles). SBS of all the samples was measured. Fractured surfaces were examined by SEM/EDX analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk, Two-way Robust ANOVA and Bonferroni correction tests were used to analyze the data (a = .05).
resultsFrameworks, ceramics, and frameworks x ceramics had significant differences (p < 0.05). The highest SBS value was seen in B-VM (p < 0.05). VM offered the highest SBS with both P and B. The differences between P-VM, P-CS, P-VE and B-CS and B-VE were insignificant (p > 0.05). According to EDX analysis, ytterbium and fluorine was seen in B content, unlike P. While VM and CS contained fluorine, barium, and aluminum; sodium and aluminum were observed in the VE structure.
conclusionBonding of P and B with VM offers higher SBS. VM, CS and VE did not make any difference in SBS for P, however VM showed a significant difference for B.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.