Effects of polishing protocols on the surface roughness and color stability of polyetheretherketone (PEEK)

Year 2024, Volume: 58 Issue: 1, 1 - 7, 30.01.2024

Sezgi Cinel Şahin , Lamia Mutlu Sağesen

https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.20231066580

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different polishing protocols on the surface properties and color stability of the polyetheretherketone (PEEK).
Materials and methods: A total of 96 disc-shaped specimens were fabricated from PEEK material and divided into 6 different groups: control (CN), ‘‘Abraso-Starglanz’’ polishing paste (A), ‘‘Yildiz’’ polishing paste (Y), ‘‘Enhance’’ polishing system (EN), ‘‘Super snap’’ polishing kit (SS), and silicone polisher (SP). Surface roughness (Ra) were measured with a profilometer and the surface topography was examined under scanning electron microscope. Color differences were measured with a spectrophotometer according to the CIEDE2000 (∆E00) formulation before and after coffee immersion. Data were statistically analyzed with Kruskall–Wallis and Spearman's correlation analysis (p < 0.05, p < 0.001).
Results: A statistically significant difference was observed between the Ra measurements of the polishing protocols (p<0.001). Ra measurements except A, Y, and SS groups were found to be higher than the clinical acceptable threshold of surface roughness (0.20 µm). In ∆E00 measurements, statistically significant differences were observed between the CN and SP (p=0.041), EN (p=0.001), and A (p=0.002) polishing protocols. No correlation was found between Ra and color stability.
Conclusion: Only in the A, Y and SS polishing protocols, Ra measurements were not found to be risky in terms of acceptable threshold of surface roughness. Polishing protocols have also generally failed to maintain the color stability. Considering the surface roughness and color stability, the ‘‘Abraso-Starglanz’’ paste may be suitable method for PEEK material.

Keywords

Surface roughness, color stability, polyetheretherketone, PEEK, CIEDE2000

Supporting Institution

-

Project Number

-

Thanks

The in vitro study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Pamukkale University (Approval number: 60116787-020/59518).

References

• 1. Sturz CRC, Faber FJ, Scheer M, Rothamel D, Neugebauer J. Effects of various chair-side surface treatment methods on dental restorative materials with respect to contact angles and surface roughness. Dent Mater J 2015;34:796-813. google scholar
• 2. Polychronakis N, Lagouvardos P, Polyzois G, Sykaras N, Zoidis P. Color changes of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and polyoxymethelene (POM) denture resins on single and combined staining/cleansing action by CIELab and CIEDE2000 formulas. Prosthodont Res 2020;64:159-66. google scholar
• 3. Heimer S, Schmidlin PR, Stawarczyk B. Discoloration of PMMA, composite, and PEEK. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21:1191-1200. google scholar
• 4. Liebermann A, Wimmer T, Schmidlin PR, Scherer H, Löffler P, Malgortata R, Stawarczyk B. Physicomechanical characterization of poly etheretherketone and current esthetic dental CAD/CAM polymers after aging in different storage media. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:321-8. google scholar
• 5. Kurtz SM, Devine JN. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials 2007;28:4845-69. google scholar
• 6. Fuhrmann G, Steiner M, Freitag-Wolf S, Kern M. Resin bonding to three types of polyaryletherketones (PAEKs)-Durability and influence of surface conditioning. Dent Mater 2014;30:357-63. google scholar
• 7. Heimer S, Schmidlin PR, Roos M, Stawarczyk B. Surface properties of polyetheretherketone after different laboratory and chairside polishing protocols. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:419-25. google scholar
• 8. Kurahashi K, Matsuda T, Ishida Y, Ichikawa T. Effect of polishing protocols on the surface roughness of polyetheretherketone. J Oral Sci 2020;62:40-2. google scholar
• 9. Panayotov IV, Orti V, Cuisinier F, Yachouh J. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for medical applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2016;27:118. google scholar
• 10. Harb IE, Abdel-Khalek EA, Hegazy SA. CAD/CAM constructed Poly(etheretherketone) (PEEK) framework of Kennedy Class I removable partial denture: A clinical report. J Prosthodont 2019;28:595-8. google scholar
• 11. Najeeb S, Zafar MS, Khurshid Z, Siddiqui F. Applications of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in oral implantology and prosthodontics. J Prosthodont Res 2016;60:12-9. google scholar
• 12. Jefferies SR. Abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry: A state-of-the-art review. Dent Clin North Am 2007;51:379-97. google scholar
• 13. Schönhoff LM, Mayinger F, Eichberger M, Lösch A, Reznikova E, Stawarczyk B. Three-dimensionally printed and milled polyphenylene sulfone materials in dentistry: Tensile bond strength to veneering composite resin and surface properties after different pretreatments. J Prosthet Dent 2021. Epub ahead of print. Available from: https://www.thejpd.org/article/S0022-3913(21)00027-5/pdf google scholar
• 14. Batak B, Çakmak G, Johnston WM, Yilmaz B. Surface roughness of high-performance polymers used for fixed implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2021;126: 254.e1-254.e6. google scholar
• 15. Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, Quirynen M. Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:68-81. google scholar
• 16. Auschill TM, Arweiler NB, Brecx M, Reich E, Sculean A, Netuschil L. The effect of dental restorative materials on dental biofilm. Eur J Oral Sci 2002;110:48-53. google scholar
• 17. Hahnel S, Wieser A, Lang R, Rosentritt M. Biofilm formation on the surface of modern implant abutment materials. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:1297-1301. google scholar
• 18. Köroğlu A, Sahin O, Dede DÖ, Yilmaz B. Effect of different surface treatment methods on the surface roughness and color stability of interim prosthodontic materials. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:447-55. google scholar
• 19. Zoidis P, Polychronakis N, Lagouvardos P, Polyzois G, Ngo HC. Evaluation of a realistic cleansing protocol for preventing discoloration of denture resins. J Prosthodont 2019;28:89-95. google scholar
• 20. Gönülol N, Yilmaz F. The effects of finishing and polishing techniques on surface roughness and color stability of nanocomposites. J Dent 2012;40:64-70. google scholar
• 21. Stawarczyk B, Schmid P, Roos M, Eichberger M, Schmidlin PR. Spectrophotometric evaluation of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as a core material and a comparison with gold standard core materials. Materials 2016;9:491. google scholar
• 22. Samra APB, Pereira SK, Delgado LC, Borges CP. Color stability evaluation of aesthetic restorative materials. Braz Oral Res 2008;22:205-10. google scholar
• 23. Sharma G, Wu W, Dalal EN. The CIEDE2000 color-difference formula: Implementation notes, supplementary test data, and mathematical observations. Color Res Appl 2005;30:21-30. google scholar
• 24. Lee YK. Comparison of CIELAB AE* and CIEDE2000 color-differences after polymerization and thermocycling of resin composites. Dent Mater 2005;21:678-82. google scholar
• 25. Luo MR, Cui G, Rigg B. The development of the CIE 2000 colour-difference formula: CIEDE2000. Color Res Appl 2001;26:340-50. google scholar
• 26. Mekkawy M, Hussein L, Elsharawy HL. Comparative study of surface roughness between polyamide, thermoplastic polymethyl methacrylate and acetal resins flexible denture base materials before and after polishing. Life Sci 2015;12:90-5. google scholar
• 27. Pérez MM, Pecho OE, Ghinea R, Pulgar R, Bona AD. Recent advances in color and whiteness evaluations in dentistry. Curr Dent 2018;20:23-9. google scholar
• 28. Perez MM, Ghinea R, Herrera LJ, Ionescu AM, Pomares H, Pulgar R, Paravina RD. Dental ceramics: A CIEDE2000 acceptability thresholds for lightness, chroma and hue differences. J Dent 2011;39:37-44. google scholar
• 29. Pecho OE, Ghinea R, Alessandretii R, Pérez MM, Bona AD. Visual and instrumental shade matching using CIELAB and CIEDE2000 color difference formulas. Dent Mater 2016;32:82-92. google scholar
• 30. Mangine H, Jakes K, Noel C. A preliminary comparison of CIE color differences to textile color acceptability using average observers. Color Res Appl 2005;30:288-94. google scholar
• 31. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/EN 28642:2016 Dentistry-Guidance on color measurement. google scholar
• 32. Paravina RD, Ghinea R, Herrera LJ, Bona AD, Igiel C, Linninger M, et al. Color difference thresholds in dentistry. J Esthet Restor Dent 2015;27:1-9. google scholar
• 33. Hondrum SO, Jr. Fernández R. Contouring, finishing, and polishing class 5 restorative materials. Oper Dent 1997;22:30-6. google scholar
• 34. Bayindir F, Kürklü D, Yanikoğlu ND. The effect of staining solutions on the color stability of provisional prosthodontic materials. J Dent 2012;40:41-6. google scholar
• 35. Guler AU, Yilmaz F, Kulunk T, Guler E, Kurt S. Effects of different drinks on stainability of resin composite provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:118-24. google scholar
• 36. Ahmed SS, Abdelhalim EF, Amgad SW. Color stability of two machinable restorative materials. EDJ 2019;65:1-11. google scholar
• 37. Yannikakis SA, Zissis AJ, Polyzois GL, Caroni C. Color stability of provisional resin restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:533-9. google scholar
• 38. Ali YD, Ahmed SEK, Mona MG, Maha AA. In vitro comparative study of Lava Ultimate CAD/CAM restorative system in comparison to IPS e-max press. Alex Dent J 2016;41:156-62. google scholar
• 39. Melgosa M, Huertas R, Berns RS. Performance of recent advanced color-difference formulas using the standardized residual sum of squares index. J Opt Soc Am A 2008;25:1828. google scholar