Article in PDF
How to Cite
Citation Manager
Readers' Comments (0)
Audio Visual Article Statistics
Link
to PUBMED
Print this Article
Send to a Friend
Advertisers
Access Statistics Resources
Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."
Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011
Dr. Shankar P.R.
"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."
Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011 Anuradha
Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.
Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020
Original article / research
Full Version
Shear Bond Strength of Veneering Composite Versus Different Polyetheretherketone Materials after Various Surface Treatments: An In-vitro Study
Correspondence Address :
Dr. N Vidhyasankari,
Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, KSR Institute of Dental Science and Research, Tiruchengode-637215, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-mail: vidhya_3010@yahoo.com
Introduction: Polyetheretherketone, also known as PEEK, is a semicrystalline thermoplastic material with many advantages. Since its grey material, it has to veneering with composite resin to enhance its aesthetic appeal. Bonding PEEK and composite veneers poses challenges due to its inert surface.
Aim: To assess and compare the Shear Bond Strength (SBS) between various polyetheretherketone materials and veneering composites following various surface treatments.
Materials and Methods: The in-vitro study was conducted at KSR Dental College and Hospital in Tiruchengode, Tamil Nadu, India, over a period of three months from December 2022 to February 2023. A total of 108 PEEK discs were prepared for the study, divided into three groups: unfilled PEEK, 30% carbon reinforced PEEK, and 10% carbon+10% graphite+10% Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) reinforced PEEK. The specimens underwent different surface treatments, including no treatment, sandblasting with 110 um alumina particles, and acid etching with 98% sulphuric acid. Additionally, 108 composite discs were prepared and bonded to the PEEK specimens using adhesive and resin cement. The bonded specimens were immersed in distilled water for 24 hours, and the Shear Bond Strength (SBS) was determined using a universal testing machine. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA, and mean values were compared using posthoc tests.
Results: The results indicated significant variation in SBS among the three groups without treatment (p=0.011) and after sandblasting with 110 um alumina (p=<0.001). The 30% carbon reinforced PEEK exhibited the highest SBS regardless of the surface treatments.
Conclusion: Among the tested materials, 30% carbon reinforced PEEK demonstrated the highest SBS, regardless of the surface treatments. Acid etching yielded the highest SBS among the various surface treatments, irrespective of the type of PEEK material used.
Acid etching, Air abrasion, Alumina, Sandblasting
Polyetheretherketone, also known as PEEK, is a semicrystalline thermoplastic material with several advantages, like excellent mechanical properties and a high melting point of approximately 335°C. It exhibits chemical stability with both organic and inorganic compounds, ease of processing, high stiffness, dimensional stability at high temperatures, and compatibility with common sterilisations methods. Due to its colour, radiolucency, stiffness, and lighter weight compared to natural teeth, PEEK is a preferred material for dental restorations (1),(2).
The PEEK is a grey substance that does not contain any metals. While it offers better aesthetics than metal alloys, it falls short when compared to zirconia. Therefore, PEEK requires veneering with composite resin. However, bonding PEEK and composite veneers is challenging due to its inert surface (3). Surface roughness, bacterial retention, colour stability, and wear qualities are important factors related to the long-term performance of dental prostheses (4). Adhesion, influenced by material properties such as surface roughness, contact angle, wettability, and friction coefficient, is crucial for successful bonding and is greatly affected by surface modification (5),(6). A strong bond is formed when the adhesive securely attaches to the substrate and releases most of the applied energy. When both the substrate and adhesive contain reactive groups, a strong bond can be achieved. Surface roughness enhances the mechanical anchoring of the adhesive by increasing the surface contact area (7).
Numerous efforts have been made to increase the surface energy of PEEK using various surface treatment techniques. Studies have shown that surface treatment significantly increases the polar component of PEEK’s surface free energy (8). While individual research has been conducted on surface treatments of PEEK specimens (3),(4), a direct comparison between different surface treatments within the same study is limited. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the Shear Bond Strength (SBS) of veneering composite to various polyetheretherketone materials and evaluate the effects of various surface treatments.
The in-vitro study was conducted at KSR Dental College and Hospital in Tiruchengode, Tamil Nadu, India, over a period of three months from December 2022 to February 2023. The study received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Institutional Ethical Clearance (IEC) committees of the institution (IEC-PG/FEB/2021/001). A total of 108 PEEK specimens were selected for the study, with each group included 36 specimens.
Sample size calculation: The sample size was calculated using G Power software, with an 80% effect size, 5% margin of error, and 80% power.
Study Procedure
The specimens were grouped into three groups based on the reinforcement material added to the unfilled PEEK: Group A (unfilled PEEK), Group B (30% carbon reinforced PEEK), and Group C (10% carbon+10% graphite+10% PTFE reinforced PEEK). Each group included 36 specimens.
Unfilled PEEK, 30% carbon reinforced PEEK, and 10% carbon+10% graphite+10% PTFE reinforced PEEK granules were obtained from the same manufacturer (Shree Krishna Polymers, Chennai). PEEK granules were used to prepare disc-shaped specimens (n=108) with a diameter of 10 mm and a height of 10 mm using the injection moulding process. Each group included 36 discs prepared from the respective PEEK materials (Table/Fig 1). Total of 108 experimental specimens were polished using 800 grit sandpaper and cleaned with distilled water for 10 minutes.
Self-cure acrylic resin was used to embed the PEEK specimens in an acrylic block. The specimens were embedded on an acrylic jig (Table/Fig 2). The samples were then subgrouped based on different surface treatments. The first subgroup was left without treatment (Test-1). The second subgroup of each group was sandblasted with 110 um alumina particles for 15 seconds at 3 atm of pressure and a distance of 5 mm in the sandblaster at an approximate angle of 60 to 90 degrees (Test-2). The sandblasted specimens were air-dried with compressed air for 20 seconds (9). The third subgroup was treated with acid etching using 98% sulphuric acid for 60 seconds. After cleaning with deionised water for one minute, the specimens were air-dried for 20 seconds (10).
Indirect composite resin (GC Gradia indirect composite) was condensed in a Teflon mold with a diameter of 8 mm and a height of 6 mm in increments. Each incremental surface was light-cured for 40 seconds using an Light Emitting Diode (LED) light curing unit. The excess material was removed, and a smooth surface was obtained (Table/Fig 3). A thin layer of adhesive (3M Single Bond Universal Adhesive) was applied to the PEEK specimens, followed by light curing. Adhesive resin cement (G-CEM one-self-adhesive resin) was dispensed and mixed on a mixing pad. The composite disc was coated with the mixed cement and immediately seated on the PEEK specimen. Pressure was applied, and light curing was performed. Excess cement was removed, and light curing was done on all margins and surfaces (Table/Fig 4).
The samples were soaked in distilled water for 24 hours before testing. Shear bond strength was tested using a universal testing machine (Model 3382, Instron) according to International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) technical specification #11405 (Table/Fig 5). A shear force was applied occlusally using a chisel rod parallel to the bonded surface of the specimen. Bond strength was calculated using the formula: Bond strength (MPa)=Debonding Force (Newton)/Surface area of the composite (mm)2.The mean and standard deviation values for all groups were obtained and subjected to statistical analysis.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive and inferential statistics were analysed using International Business Machines (IBM) Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0 (IBM Corp, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). A test of normality was conducted to assess the data distribution, and one-way ANOVA was performed to analyse the differences in SBS between Group A (unfilled PEEK), Group B (30% carbon reinforced PEEK), and Group C (10% carbon+10% PTFE+10% graphite reinforced PEEK). Bonferroni posthoc tests were conducted to determine which pairs of groups differed significantly from each other. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
The influence of surface treatments (Test-1: without treatment, Test-2: sandblasting with 110 um alumina, and Test-3: acid etching with 98% sulphuric acid) on the Shear Bond Strength (SBS) of the veneering composite on unfilled PEEK resulted in values of 12.20 MPa, 13.82 MPa, and 14.48 MPa, respectively (Table/Fig 6). There was a statistically significant difference (p=0.010) between Test-1 and Test-3 for the unfilled group.
The influence of surface treatments on the SBS of the veneering composite on 30% carbon reinforced PEEK resulted in values of 14.10 MPa, 15.63 MPa, and 17.47 MPa, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between Test-1 and Test-2 (p=0.032), Test-1 and Test-3 (p=<0.001), and Test-2 and Test-3 (p=0.008) (Table/Fig 7).
The influence of surface treatments on the SBS of the veneering composite on 10% carbon+10% PTFE+10% graphite reinforced PEEK resulted in values of 12.62 MPa, 13.89 MPa, and 14.01 MPa, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference observed among the groups.
When comparing the SBS among the different groups, statistically significant differences were found between Group A and Group B (p=<0.001), Group B and Group C (p=<0.001), and Group A and Group C (p=<0.001) for the surface treatment of acid etching with 98% sulphuric acid (Table/Fig 8).
The PEEK is considered an advanced biomaterial and is used in dentistry for creating temporary crowns for implants, using plastic temporary abutments. PEEK has an extremely low elastic modulus, but when reinforced with materials such as carbon fibres or glass fibres, its elastic modulus can increase significantly, making it advantageous for endosseous implants. Carbon Fibre-reinforced PEEK (CFR-PEEK) has attracted interest from the medical implant community due to its favourable properties (11).
In present study, two surface treatments were performed on PEEK specimens: sandblasting with 110 um alumina (mechanical method) and acid etching with 98% sulphuric acid (chemical method). Previous research has shown that sandblasting with 110 um alumina particles improves bond strength to resin cements with PEEK (12). Sandblasting creates a microporous surface with increased wettability, enhancing micro retention (13). Similarly, sulfuric acid treatment increases the number of functional groups on the PEEK surface, creating larger micro porosities that promote bonding with composite materials.
Adhesive resin cements, specifically G-CEM ONE Paste Pak, were used in present study as luting agents for bonding the veneering composite to the PEEK specimens (14). Indirect composite restorations have advantages over direct composites when veneered with PEEK, including reduced incidence of problems and less polymerisation shrinkage stress.
When comparing the SBS between the veneering composite and PEEK specimens after sandblasting with 110 um alumina particles (Test-2), higher SBS values were observed in all three groups compared to specimens without treatment (Test-1). This is attributed to the roughness created by sandblasting, which provides micromechanical interlocking and improves wetting properties.
When comparing the SBS between the veneering composite and PEEK specimens after acid etching with 98% sulphuric acid (Test-3), the highest SBS values were observed compared to Test-1 and Test-2, regardless of the type of PEEK material. This is likely due to the chemical bonding between the sulfonate groups produced by sulfuric acid and the adhesives, as well as the micromechanical bonding created by resin tags penetrating the surface pits and pores of PEEK (13).
When comparing the SBS between the veneering composite and PEEK specimens of different groups, regardless of surface treatments, the group with 30% carbon reinforced PEEK showed the highest SBS. This is attributed to the influence of carbon fibres, which create a rougher surface and improve wettability, thus enhancing bond strength.
A study by Li W et al., showed the alteration in surface topography of PEEK specimens due to influence of carbon fibres. A 30% carbon reinforcement created rougher surface (15). A study was done by EL-Wassefy NA to compare acid etching with 98% sulphuric acid is an effective surface treatment for improving the bond strength between the veneering composite and PEEK, regardless of the type of PEEK material (3). Carbon fibre reinforcement also contributes to higher bond strength. It is important to consider these factors when selecting surface treatments for PEEK restorations in dental applications.
Limitation(s)
One limitation of present study is that it was conducted in-vitro, so it did not precisely replicate the conditions in the oral cavity. Another methodological flaw is the absence of thermocycling or long-term water storage to simulate artificial aging, which could have provided insights into the long-term endurance of the veneering process.
Within the limitations of present study, it can be concluded that the highest SBS was observed in 30% carbon-reinforced PEEK when comparing it to the veneering composite and different PEEK materials after various surface treatments. Additionally, when comparing the effect of different surface treatments on SBS with the veneering composite and different PEEK materials, the highest value was observed in the acid-etched group, regardless of the type of PEEK specimen.
To better understand the chemical implications of the surface treatments on SBS and to evaluate the long-term endurance of the veneering process, further research is needed. This could include analysing the chemical structures on the PEEK surfaces and conducting studies with longer exposure periods in distilled water.
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/64369.18932
Date of Submission: Mar 31, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Jun 24, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Sep 18, 2023
Date of Publishing: Jan 01, 2024
AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? NA
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Apr 05, 2023
• Manual Googling: Jul 18, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Sep 16, 2023 (5%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
EMENDATIONS: 9
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Embase
- EBSCOhost
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com