Next Article in Journal
Electrospun Nanofibers Made of Silver Nanoparticles, Cellulose Nanocrystals, and Polyacrylonitrile as Substrates for Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering
Previous Article in Journal
Anisotropy of Photopolymer Parts Made by Digital Light Processing
Article Menu
Issue 1 (January) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Materials 2017, 10(1), 67; doi:10.3390/ma10010067

Bonding to Different PEEK Compositions: The Impact of Dental Light Curing Units

Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Goethestrasse 70, 80336 Munich, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Marco Salerno
Received: 29 November 2016 / Revised: 15 December 2016 / Accepted: 10 January 2017 / Published: 14 January 2017
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [1232 KB, uploaded 14 January 2017]   |  

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of different light curing units (LCUs) for the polymerization of adhesive system visio.link (VL) on the tensile bond strength (TBS) of different PEEK compositions. For TBS measurements, 216 PEEK specimens with varying amounts of TiO2 (PEEK/0%, PEEK/20%, PEEK/>30%) were embedded, polished, air abraded (Al2O3, 50 µm, 0.4 MPa), conditioned using VL, and polymerized using either a halogen LCU (HAL-LCU) or a LED LCU (LED-LCU) for chairside or labside application, respectively. After thermocycling (5000×, 5/55 °C), TBS was measured, and fracture types were determined. Data was analyzed using a 2-way ANOVA followed by Tukey–HSD, Kruskal–Wallis H and Mann–Whitney U tests as well as a Chi2-test and a Ciba–Geigy table (p < 0.05). Globally, the light curing units, followed by PEEK composition, was shown to have the highest impact on TBS. The HAL-LCUs, compared to the LED-LCUs, resulted in a higher TBS for all PEEK compositions—without significant differences between chairside and labside units. Regarding the different PEEK compositions, PEEK/20%, compared to PEEK/0%, resulted in a higher TBS when both, HAL-LCUs or LED-LCUs were used for labside application. In comparison with PEEK/>30%, PEEK/20% resulted in a higher TBS after using HAL-LCU for labside application. No significant differences were found between PEEK/0% and PEEK/>30%. HAL-LCU with PEEK/20% for labside application showed a higher TBS than HAL-LCU with PEEK/20% for chairside application, whereas LED-LCU with PEEK/>30% for chairside application showed a higher TBS than LED-LCU with PEEK/>30% for labside application. View Full-Text
Keywords: PEEK; TiO2; adhesive system; light curing units; LED; halogen; bonding properties; tensile bond strength; fracture types PEEK; TiO2; adhesive system; light curing units; LED; halogen; bonding properties; tensile bond strength; fracture types
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Lümkemann, N.; Eichberger, M.; Stawarczyk, B. Bonding to Different PEEK Compositions: The Impact of Dental Light Curing Units. Materials 2017, 10, 67.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Materials EISSN 1996-1944 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top