It is uncertain whether the interchangeable use of two adhesive systems would yield comparable shear bond strength (SBS) for both Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and Polyetherketoneketone (PEKK); investigating this was the main objective of this study. Milled PEEK (Bredent, Senden, Germany) and PEKK (Pekkton Ivory, AnaxDent, Stuttgart, Germany) blocks were prepared with standardized roughness (0.20 μm) and randomly assigned into two groups (n = 72): with and without aluminum oxide air abrasion (AquaCare Twin, Medivance Instruments, London, UK). Two adhesive systems (Visio.link, Bredent, Senden, Germany, or PEKKBond, AnaxDent, Stuttgart, Germany) were randomly applied (n = 36). Flowable gingival composite (AnaxGum Gingiva, AnaxDent, Stuttgart, Germany) was bonded, and the samples were stored in water (37 °C, 24 h). SBS was measured (MPa) and data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s test (α = 0.05). All main effects and interactions were significant (p < 0.05), except for polymer (p = 0.163) and the triple interaction (p = 0.601). In the PEEK group, Visiolink showed higher SBS (p < 0.001), regardless of prior air abrasion. For the PEKK group, PEKKBond significantly increased SBS values (p < 0.001) for both pre-treatment groups. Previous air abrasion only significantly increased the SBS of controls without adhesive. This study highlights the importance of material-specific adhesive selection, rather than interchangeable use, for optimal results. The bond strength of PEEK and PEKK is influenced by the adhesive system applied. Moreover, PEKK consistently demonstrated higher SBS values in comparison to PEEK, even without the need for pre-treatment or adhesive conditioning. This characteristic renders PEKK a preferred choice for the fabrication of adhesive restorations.

Aims: Edentulous patients can also suffer from sleep bruxism (SB), just like dentate patients. This study aims to evaluate the prevalence and severity of SB in edentulous patients using the definitive method.Methods: Twenty‐three edentulous patients underwent treatment with new conventional complete dentures. Definitive SB was evaluated using the Bruxoff (portable electromyography device) while sleeping at home. The prevalence of SB was assessed by the Bruxmeter software, where SB was evaluated as “absent” (score zero), “light” (4 episodes). The prevalence was expressed with descriptive statistics in percentage using the number of detected cases out of the total number of patients.Results: Eighteen patients (78.26%) were diagnosed with SB. The severity of SB was 55.5%, 5.5%, and 39% for the light, moderate, and severe scores, respectively.Conclusions: Almost 8 out of 10 edentulous patients have SB. Approximately half of the SB‐detected patients showed moderate to severe severity of bruxism as measured by a commercial, at‐home device.