English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) composites are biocompatible materials that may overcome the esthetic and allergic problems of titanium dental implants. However, their potential for osseointegration with a subsequent survival rate is still questionable. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness and wettability of different surface-treated filled and unfilled PEEK specimens, which may be indicative of the osseointegration behavior and potential use of PEEK as an implant material. Unfilled, ceramic-filled (CFP) and carbon fiber-reinforced (CFRP) PEEK discs were prepared and left untreated or were surface treated with 50 μ, 110 μ, or 250 μ aluminum oxide particles. The roughness average (Ra) value of each disc was evaluated using a contact stylus profilometer. Their contact angles were measured to evaluate their wettability, which was compared among PEEK discs using ANOVA, followed by Bonferroni test for pairwise comparisons ( P ≤ .05). Regarding the surface roughness, a significant difference was found between unfilled and filled PEEK when untreated and bombarded with 50 or 110 microns of aluminum oxide particles. For the contact angle, a significant difference was found only among the untreated PEEK materials. Among the evaluated PEEK materials, CFRP50, CFRP110 and CFP110 showed the most favorable Ra values with good wettability properties, thus being potential substrates for dental implants.

Can PEEK Be an Implant Material? Evaluation of Surface Topography and Wettability of Filled Versus Unfilled PEEK With Different Surface Roughness