Yayın:
Comparison of the shear bond strengths of two different polyetheretherketone (PEEK) framework materials and CAD–CAM veneer materials

dc.contributor.authorGökay, Gonca Deste
dc.contributor.authorAladağ, Seda Üstün
dc.contributor.buuauthorDESTE GÖKAY, GONCA
dc.contributor.buuauthorÜSTÜN ALADAĞ, SEDA
dc.contributor.departmentDiş Hekimliği Fakültesi
dc.contributor.departmentProtetik Diş Tedavisi Ana Bilim Dalı
dc.contributor.scopusid57222483984
dc.contributor.scopusid57215187522
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-12T22:16:53Z
dc.date.issued2024-12-01
dc.description.abstractBackground: This study evaluated the shear bond strength (SBS) of two different polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and CAD-CAM materials after aging. Methods: A total of 42 frameworks were designed and milled from 2 different PEEK discs (Copra Peek, P and BioHPP, B). P and B frameworks were divided into 3 subgroups (n = 7). 14 slices were prepared each from feldspathic ceramic (Vitablocs Mark II, VM), hybrid nanoceramic (Cerasmart, CS), and polymer-infiltrated ceramic (Vita Enamic, VE) blocks. After surface preparations, the slices were cemented to P and B surfaces. The samples were subjected to thermal aging (5000 cycles). SBS of all the samples was measured. Fractured surfaces were examined by SEM/EDX analysis. The Shapiro–Wilk, Two-way Robust ANOVA and Bonferroni correction tests were used to analyze the data (a =.05). Results: Frameworks, ceramics, and frameworks x ceramics had significant differences (p < 0.05). The highest SBS value was seen in B-VM (p < 0.05). VM offered the highest SBS with both P and B. The differences between P-VM, P-CS, P-VE and B-CS and B-VE were insignificant (p > 0.05). According to EDX analysis, ytterbium and fluorine was seen in B content, unlike P. While VM and CS contained fluorine, barium, and aluminum; sodium and aluminum were observed in the VE structure. Conclusion: Bonding of P and B with VM offers higher SBS. VM, CS and VE did not make any difference in SBS for P, however VM showed a significant difference for B.
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12903-024-04247-0
dc.identifier.issn14726831
dc.identifier.issue1
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85190304720
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11452/51221
dc.identifier.volume24
dc.indexed.scopusScopus
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherBioMed Central Ltd
dc.relation.bap2021–521
dc.relation.journalBMC Oral Health
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectShear bond strength
dc.subjectPEEK
dc.subjectCAD-CAM materials
dc.subjectBioHPP
dc.subject.scopusPolyetheretherketone; Biomaterial; Hydroxylapatite
dc.titleComparison of the shear bond strengths of two different polyetheretherketone (PEEK) framework materials and CAD–CAM veneer materials
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.contributor.departmentDiş Hekimliği Fakültesi/Protetik Diş Tedavisi Ana Bilim Dalı
local.indexed.atScopus
relation.isAuthorOfPublication445cb9ac-17e5-4716-8945-a46301346983
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationc4c0b654-1860-46c6-89ff-c5db1166ced9
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery445cb9ac-17e5-4716-8945-a46301346983

Dosyalar

Orijinal seri

Şimdi gösteriliyor 1 - 1 / 1
Küçük Resim
Ad:
Gökay_Aladağ_2024.pdf
Boyut:
4.76 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format