ArticleJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society2026
Effects of chemical surface treatments on the shear bond strength between polyetheretherketone and veneering composite resin: An in vitro study.
Article in Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo examine the effects of different chemical surface treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) between milled PEEK and veneering composite resin. SETTINGS AND
designThis was an in vitro comparative study. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty PEEK discs were assigned to four groups ( n = 15): no surface treatment (PEEK), bonding using a methyl methacrylate (MMA)-based adhesive (Single Bond Universal) (PEEK + BD), 10% hydrofluoric acid etching followed by bonding (PEEK + HFA + BD), and 98% sulfuric acid etching followed by bonding (PEEK + H 2 SO 4 + BD). The specimens were all bonded by using a MMA-based adhesive (Single Bond Universal). A luting agent (RelyX U200) was used to bond the composite resin (Universal Filtek Z350 X T) to the pretreated PEEK surfaces. An Instron universal machine was used to calculate the SBS between the PEEK and the composite resin following ISO 10477. Failure modes (cohesive, adhesive, and mixed) and interface morphology were analyzed by stereomicroscopy. Data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests ( a = 0.05). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests ( a = 0.05).
resultsThe mean SBS values of the PEEK + H 2 SO 4 + BD group (2.09 ± 0.90 MPa) were significantly higher than those of all other groups ( P < 0.05). The 10% HFA etching did not significantly affect the SBS values compared to the control group ( P > 0.05). PEEK + H 2 SO 2 +BD group also had the largest number of cohesive (55%) and mixed (45%) failures.
conclusionEtching with 98% sulfuric acid followed by a bonding agent significantly improved SBS between milled PEEK and veneer composite, although yet below the minimal threshold values.
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.