ArticleInternational dental journal2026
Surface Roughness and Bond Strength of PEEK Posts: Comparing Chemical, Mechanical, and Laser Methods.
Article in International dental journal, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsAssessing the effect of different surface pretreatments, that is, sulfuric acid (SA), air-particle abrasion (APA), Er, Cr: YSGG laser, and nonthermal plasma (NTP)on the push-out bond strength (PBS) and surface roughness (R MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty caries-free single-rooted premolars were selected and decoronated. Following access cavity preparation, the working length was standardized at 14 mm. Root canal treatment was completed, and post space preparation was carried out by removing 10 mm of gutta-percha using a Gates-Glidden drill. A total of one hundred prefabricated polyetheretherketone (PEEK) posts were randomly allocated into 5 groups according to the surface treatment protocol (n = 20): Group 1: No treatment (control), Group 2: SA, Group 3: APA, Group 4: Er, Cr: YSGG laser, and Group 5: NTP. R
resultsThe maximum R
conclusionAPA and Er, Cr: YSGG laser treatment might be considered effective alternatives to SA for pretreating PEEK posts. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Sulfuric acid treatment, while producing the highest Ra and PBS values in PEEK surface treatment, carries inherent risks in a clinical setting - including tissue toxicity, handling hazards, and the need for strict neutralization protocols, making it less practical for routine chairside use. The finding that air-particle abrasion and Er, Cr: YSGG laser are effective alternatives. Both modalities are already present in well-equipped dental practices, require no hazardous chemical handling, and can be applied precisely and efficiently before post-cementation.
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.