Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Effect of different cleaning methods of polyetheretherketone on surface roughness and surface free energy properties - Zurich Open Repository and Archive


Heimer, Sina; Schmidlin, Patrick R; Stawarczyk, Bogna (2016). Effect of different cleaning methods of polyetheretherketone on surface roughness and surface free energy properties. Journal of Applied Biomaterials & Functional Materials, 14(3):e248-e255.

Abstract

PURPOSE To determine the effect of different individual, laboratory and professional cleaning methods on the surface-roughness (SR) and surface free energy (SFE) of polyetheretherketone (PEEK), PMMA-based (PMMA) and composite (COMP) materials. METHODS 330 specimens of PEEK, PMMA and COMP (N = 990) were prepared and divided into the following cleaning protocols (n = 30/group): (i) individual prophylaxis using (ST) soft, (MT) medium-hard and (SOT) sonic toothbrushes, (ii) in-lab cleaning protocols consisting of (SY) Sympro cleaning system, (SS) SunSparkle, (UB) ultrasonic bath and (AP) Al2O3-powder device and (iii) professional prophylaxis applying (PS) Perio Soft-Scaler, (SO) Sonicsys, (AFC) Air Flow Comfort, and (AFP) Air Flow Plus. After each protocol SR (profilometer), SFE (contact angle devise) and surface topography (SEM) were measured. Data were analyzed using multivariate analysis, Kruskal-Wallis-H- and Mann-Whitney-U-test (p<0.05). RESULTS No impact of material on SR was observed (p = 0.443). Cleaning using conventional air-abrasion and powders (AP), followed by AFC produced higher SR values than the remaining methods (p<0.001). Within SFE, the cleaning method exerted the highest influence on SFE values (p<0.001, ηP2 = 0.246), closely followed by the polymer material (p<0.001, ηP2 = 0.136). PMMA and PEEK presented after cleaning lower SFE than COMP. PS, UB and SO showed lower SFE than specimens cleaned using SS, ST and SY. Cleaning using SY led to the highest SFE. CONCLUSIONS With regard to SR, all methods - with exception of conventional air-abrasion - can be recommended to clean PEEK. According to the SFE, PEEK may be an acceptable material providing even lower plaque accumulation rates than COMP. The field for more research is now open for scrutiny.

Abstract

PURPOSE To determine the effect of different individual, laboratory and professional cleaning methods on the surface-roughness (SR) and surface free energy (SFE) of polyetheretherketone (PEEK), PMMA-based (PMMA) and composite (COMP) materials. METHODS 330 specimens of PEEK, PMMA and COMP (N = 990) were prepared and divided into the following cleaning protocols (n = 30/group): (i) individual prophylaxis using (ST) soft, (MT) medium-hard and (SOT) sonic toothbrushes, (ii) in-lab cleaning protocols consisting of (SY) Sympro cleaning system, (SS) SunSparkle, (UB) ultrasonic bath and (AP) Al2O3-powder device and (iii) professional prophylaxis applying (PS) Perio Soft-Scaler, (SO) Sonicsys, (AFC) Air Flow Comfort, and (AFP) Air Flow Plus. After each protocol SR (profilometer), SFE (contact angle devise) and surface topography (SEM) were measured. Data were analyzed using multivariate analysis, Kruskal-Wallis-H- and Mann-Whitney-U-test (p<0.05). RESULTS No impact of material on SR was observed (p = 0.443). Cleaning using conventional air-abrasion and powders (AP), followed by AFC produced higher SR values than the remaining methods (p<0.001). Within SFE, the cleaning method exerted the highest influence on SFE values (p<0.001, ηP2 = 0.246), closely followed by the polymer material (p<0.001, ηP2 = 0.136). PMMA and PEEK presented after cleaning lower SFE than COMP. PS, UB and SO showed lower SFE than specimens cleaned using SS, ST and SY. Cleaning using SY led to the highest SFE. CONCLUSIONS With regard to SR, all methods - with exception of conventional air-abrasion - can be recommended to clean PEEK. According to the SFE, PEEK may be an acceptable material providing even lower plaque accumulation rates than COMP. The field for more research is now open for scrutiny.

Altmetrics

Downloads

4 downloads since deposited on 27 Jan 2017
4 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, not refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:26 July 2016
Deposited On:27 Jan 2017 15:38
Last Modified:26 Jul 2017 00:00
Publisher:Wichtig Editore
ISSN:2280-8000
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.5301/jabfm.5000291
PubMed ID:27311431

Download

Preview Icon on Download
Preview
Content: Accepted Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 506kB
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations