ArticleBMC oral health2026
Push-out bond strength of CAD/CAM-fabricated modified PEEK dental posts.
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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the bond strength to dentin of dental posts fabricated with different PEEK using the push-out test, while also examining the failure modes.
methodsSixty mandibular premolars extracted for periodontal reasons were randomly allocated into three groups (n = 20 each). The custom post-cores were fabricated using CAD/CAM from 3 PEEK disks: unfilled PEEK (Group UP); 20% TiO2-filled PEEK (Group TP); 20% ceramic-filled PEEK (Group CP). Monobond Plus and visio.link adhesives were used for bonding. Following cementation, 180 dentin disks were obtained by sectioning each tooth into 1 mm segments from the coronal, middle, and apical thirds. Subsequently, the push-out bond strength (PBS) test was performed. Data were analyzed using MANOVA and Tukey’s HSD tests (α = 0.05).
resultsThere was no significant difference between the bonding agents in Group CP. In Group UP, Visio.link exhibited significantly higher push-out bond strength (PBS) than Monobond Plus in the middle and coronal thirds, while in Group TP, this superiority was observed in the apical and middle thirds. Among the tested post materials, Group CP demonstrated the highest overall PBS values, which were significantly greater than those of Group TP, though not significantly different from Group UP. The highest PBS values were consistently found in the coronal third, followed by the middle and apical thirds. Ceramic-filled PEEK posts achieved the greatest bond strength, and Visio.link outperformed Monobond Plus as a bonding agent. A gradual decrease in PBS from the coronal to the apical thirds was observed across all groups.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, ceramic-reinforced PEEK posts provided the highest push-out bond strength to root dentin. The Visio.link bonding agent demonstrated superior performance compared to Monobond Plus, and the PBS of PEEK posts decreased progressively from the coronal to the apical third. Careful selection of both the PEEK post type and the bonding agent is essential to enhance the retention and clinical success of custom PEEK post-core restorations in endodontically treated teeth.
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.