ArticleBMC oral health2026
The effect of different surface treatment methods on the pull-out bond strength of PEEK endocrowns.
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
backgroundPolyetheretherketone (PEEK) has gained increasing attention as a restorative material for endocrown fabrication because of its favorable biomechanical properties and dentin-like elastic modulus. However, its low surface energy and chemically inert structure may compromise adhesive bonding to resin cements. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different surface treatment protocols on the pull-out bond strength of PEEK endocrowns.
methodsSixty extracted sound human molars were used in this study. Standard endodontic access cavities were prepared for all teeth and root canal treatment was completed following a uniform clinical protocol. After endodontic therapy, the required occlusal preparations for endocrown restorations were performed. The prepared teeth were scanned using an intraoral scanner and PEEK endocrowns were fabricated for each specimen using a computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing system. The endocrowns were then randomly allocated to four groups according to the surface treatment protocol: Group C (Control), no surface treatment was applied; Group T, tribochemical silica coating followed by silanization; Group S, sandblasting followed by the application of a methyl methacrylate (MMA)-based primer (Visio.link
resultsSurface treatment protocols significantly affected pull-out bond strength (p < 0.001). The highest bond strength was observed in the tribochemical silica coating + silane group, followed by the sandblasting + MMA primer group, with no significant difference between them (p > 0.05). The laser-treated group showed significantly higher values than the control group but significantly lower values than both chemically treated groups (p < 0.05). The untreated control group exhibited the lowest bond strength.
conclusionSurface treatment significantly improves the bonding performance of PEEK endocrowns. Protocols combining micromechanical roughening with chemical priming provided the most favorable bond strength values and may represent more reliable options for adhesive cementation of PEEK 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.