Skip to main content


Log in

Bonding of composite resins to PEEK: the influence of adhesive systems and air-abrasion parameters

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript



The objective of the study was to investigate the tensile bond strength (TBS) to polyaryletheretherketone (PEEK) after different pretreatment and conditioning methods.


Four hundred PEEK specimens were fabricated and allocated to the following air-abrasion methods (n 1 = 80/pretreatment): (i) 50 μm Al2O3 (0.05 MPa); (ii) 50 μm Al2O3 (0.35 MPa); (iii) 110 μm Al2O3 (0.05 MPa); (iv) 110 μm Al2O3 (0.35 MPa); and (v) Rocatec 110 μm (0.28 MPa). These pretreatments were combined with the following conditioning methods (n 2 = 20/pretreatment/conditioning): (a) (VL); (b) Monobond Plus/Heliobond (MH); (c) Scotchbond Universal (SU); and (d) dialog bonding fluid (DB). After veneering of all specimens with dialog occlusal and aging (28 days H2O, 37 °C + 20,000 thermal cycles, 5/55 °C), TBS was measured. Data was analysed using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis with Breslow–Gehan test and Cox-regressions.


The major impact on TBS showed the conditioning, followed by the air-abrasion-pressure, while the grain size of the air-abrasion powder did not show any effect. Specimens air-abraded at 0.35 MPa showed the highest survival rates. However, within VL groups, this observation was not statistically significant. Within MH groups, pretreatment using 110 μm Al2O3 and 0.05 MPa resulted in higher survival rates compared to groups treated with 50 and 110 μm Al2O3 using a pressure of 0.35 MPa. The use of VL showed the highest survival rates between the adhesive systems and the TBS values higher than 25 MPa independent of the pretreatment method. As an exception, only VL showed significantly higher survival rates when compared to MH.


The adequate choice of the adhesive system and higher pressures improved the TBS between PEEK and veneering resin composite. The particle size had no major impact.

Clinical relevance

According to this study, best veneering of PEEK with dialog occlusal can be achieved by conditioning with in combination with the pretreatment of airborne particle abrasion at a pressure of 0.35 MPa.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Salamone, JC. (1996) Polymeric materials encyclopedia 4, CRC Press.

  2. Modjerrad K, Ebnesajjad S (2013) Handbook of polymer applications in medicineand medical devices.

  3. Kurtz SM, Devine JN (2007) PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials 28:4845–4869

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Toth JM, Wang M, Estes BT, Scifert JL, Seim HB 3rd, Turner AS (2006) Polyetheretherketone as a biomaterial for spinal applications. Biomaterials 27:324–334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stawarczyk B, Beuer F, Wimmer T, Jahn D, Sener B, Roos M et al (2013) Polyetheretherketone—a suitable material for fixed dental prostheses? J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 101:1209–1216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schmidlin PR, Stawarczyk B, Wieland M, Attin T, Hammerle CH, Fischer J (2010) Effect of different surface pre-treatments and luting materials on shear bond strength to PEEK. Dent Mater 26:553–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Klingler JH, Krüger MT, Sircar R, Kogias E, Scholz C, Volz F, Scheiwe C, Hubbe U, et al. (2014) PEEK cages versus PMMA spacers in anterior cervical discectomy: comparison of fusion, subsidence, sagittal alignment, and clinical outcome with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Sci World J. doi:10.1155/2014/398396

  8. O’Reilly EB, Barnett S, Madden C, Welch B, Mickey B, Rozen S et al (2015) Computed-tomography modeled polyether ether ketone (PEEK) implants in revision cranioplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 68(3):329–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schwitalla A, Muller WD (2013) PEEK dental implants: a review of the literature. J Oral Implantol 39:743–749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Stawarczyk B, Eichberger M, Uhrenbacher J, Wimmer T, Edelhoff D, Schmidlin PR (2015) Three-unit reinforced polyetheretherketone composite FDPs: influence of fabrication method on load-bearing capacity and failure types. Dent Mater J 34:7–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stawarczyk B, Keul C, Beuer F, Roos M, Schmidlin PR (2013) Tensile bond strength of veneering resins to PEEK: impact of different adhesives. Dent Mater J 32:441–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sproesser O, Schmidlin PR, Uhrenbacher J, Eichberger M, Roos M, Stawarczyk B (2014) Work of adhesion between resin composite cement and PEEK as a function of etching duration with sulfuric acid and its correlation with bond strength values. Int J Adhes Adhes 54:184–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hallmann L, Mehl A, Senero N, Hämmerle CHF (2012) The improvement of adhesive properties of PEEK through pretreatments. Appl Surface Sci 258:7213–7218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Keul C, Liebermann A, Schmidlin PR, Roos M, Sener B, Stawarczyk B (2014) Influence of PEEK surface modification on surface properties and bond strength to veneering resin composites. J Adhes Dent 16:383–392

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stawarczyk B, Jordan P, Schmidlin PR, Roos M, Eichberger M, Gernet W et al (2014) PEEK surface treatment effects on tensile bond strength to veneering resins. J Prosthet Dent 112:1278–1288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Uhrenbacher J, Schmidlin PR, Keul C, Eichberger M, Roos M, Gernet W et al (2015) The effect of surface modification on the retention strength of polyetheretherketone crowns adhesively bonded to dentin abutments. J Prosthet Dent 112:1489–1497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sproesser O, Schmidlin PR, Uhrenbacher J, Roos M, Gernet W, Stawarczyk B (2014) Effect of sulfuric acid etching of polyetheretherketone on the shear bond strength to resin cements. J Adhes Dent 16:465–472

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stawarczyk B, Bahr N, Beuer F, Wimmer T, Eichberger M, Gernet W et al (2014) Influence of plasma pretreatment on shear bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to polyetheretherketone. Clin Oral Investig 18:163–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bähr N, Keul C, Edelhoff D, Eichberger M, Roos M, Gernet W, Stawarczyk B (2013) Effect of different adhesives combined with two resin composite cements on shear bond strength to polymeric CAD/CAM materials. Dent Mater J 32:492–501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ourahmoune R, Salvia M, Mathia TG, Mesrati N (2014) Surface morphology and wettability of sandblasted PEEK and its composites. Scanning 36:64–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kern M, Lehmann F (2012) Influence of surface conditioning on bonding to polyetheretherketon (PEEK). Dent Mater 28:1280–1283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rosentritt M, Preis V, Behr M, Sereno N, Kolbeck C (2015) Shear bond strength between veneering composite and PEEK after different surface modifications. Clin Oral Investig 19(3):739–744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Andrade AM, Moura SK, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Garcia EJ, Grande RHM (2010) Evaluating resin-enamel bonds by microshear and microtensile bond strength tests: effect of composite resin. J Appl Oral Sci 18:591–598

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Heintze SD, Zimmerli B (2011) Relevance of in vitro tests of adhesive and composite dental materials. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 121:1024–1040

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Eren D, Bektas ÖÖ, Siso SH (2013) Three different adhesive systems; three different bond strength test methods. Acta Odontol Scan 71:978–983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gale MS, Darvell BW (1999) Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 27:89–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Torstenson B, Brannström M (1988) Contraction gap under composite resin restorations: effect of hygroscopic expansion and thermal stress. Oper Dent 13:24–31

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors would like to thank Schütz Dental, bredent, and Ivoclar Vivadent for material support of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bogna Stawarczyk.

Ethics declarations

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants are in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


This study received no funding.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stawarczyk, B., Taufall, S., Roos, M. et al. Bonding of composite resins to PEEK: the influence of adhesive systems and air-abrasion parameters. Clin Oral Invest 22, 763–771 (2018).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: