ArticleBMC oral health2026
Shear bond strength of adhesive systems on PEEK, PEKK, and fiber-reinforced composites: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStrong and durable bonding between composite resins and high-performance polymers (HPPs) is difficult to achieve because of HPPs’ low surface energy and chemical inertness, which limit their clinical applicability. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) between a composite resin and HPPs using different adhesive systems.
methodsDisc-shaped specimens of polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), and fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) (n = 50 per group) were fabricated and sandblasted with 50 μm aluminum oxide (Al₂O₃) particles. Surface roughness (Ra) was measured using a profilometer, and surface topography was evaluated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Each polymer group was divided into five subgroups (n = 10) according to the adhesive system used: Scotchbond Universal, G-Premio BOND, Tokuyama Universal Bond, visio.link, and PEKK Bond. Following the adhesive application, a composite resin was applied to each specimen surface and then light-polymerized. All specimens were subjected to thermocycling for 5,000 cycles. After thermocycling, SBS was measured using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using a two-way and one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD test (α = 0.05).
resultsFRC demonstrated the highest Ra and SBS values, followed by PEKK and PEEK. The 10-methacryloyloxydecyl-dihydrogenphosphat (MDP) - and silane-containing adhesive (Scotchbond Universal) showed significantly higher SBS values compared to the other adhesive systems. Cohesive failure represented the predominant type of failure in most groups.
conclusionsUniversal adhesives containing functional monomers such as MDP and silane may provide reliable bonding to HPP materials after airborne-particle abrasion. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, these findings support the clinical use of universal adhesives for chairside repair and veneering procedures of HPP-based restorations. Additionally, the selection of appropriate surface conditioning and adhesive protocols may help improve the longevity and predictability of polymer-based prosthetic restorations.
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.