Batak, BurcuCakmak, GulceJohnston, William M.Yilmaz, Burak2024-05-252024-05-252021120022-39131097-684110.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.0292-s2.0-85100613774https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.029https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14517/1045batak, burcu/0000-0001-5363-5067;Statement of problem. High-performance polymers have been recommended by their manufacturers as a framework material for implant-supported fixed prostheses. However, little is known about the surface roughness of high-performance polymers in different compositions and whether they require layering with a composite resin or acrylic resin on the tissue surface. Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the surface roughness of different computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacture (CAD-CAM) high-performance polymers and the effect of polishing on their surface roughness. Material and methods: Seventy high-performance polymer specimens (n=10) for 4 different polyetheretherketone (PEEK) brands (BRE, CP, ZZ, J), 1 polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) (PK), and 2 different fiber-reinforced composite resin (FRC) materials (T, TR) were milled from 7x8x30-mm CAD-CAM blocks. The surface roughness (Ra) of each specimen was measured on the same surfaces after milling (baseline) and after polishing by using a contact profilometer. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA (MIXED procedure) and the Bonferroni corrected t test (alpha=.05) were used to analyze the surface roughness data. Results: No significant differences were found among high-performance polymers when the baseline surface roughness measurements of the materials were compared (P>.05). All materials (BRE, PK, CP, T, TR, ZZ), except for a PEEK material (J) (P<.05), had no significant differences in their surface roughness before and after polishing. After polishing, the surface roughness of the J PEEK material was higher than that of CP, PK, T, and ZZ (P<.05). Conclusions: The surface roughness of high-performance polymers in different compositions after milling was similar. Polishing increased the surface roughness of only one PEEK (J) material. All surface roughness values were above the clinical acceptability threshold of 0.2 mu m.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess[No Keyword Available]ArticleQ1Q11262WOS:00068739190002133583619