I'll try to answer your question, sorry if it doesn't satisfy you. It's true, that the treaty helped establish the longest period of stability in Ottoman-Iranian relations (1639 to 1724, about 80 years), and territorial sovereignty would gradually replace hegemony defined by suzerainty, and the gradual secularization of frontiers and relations just like with the treaty of Westphalia, but the treaty doesn't exactly established precise 'borders' as we know it but rather designated entire regions (in this case, Tigris-Euphrates basin and Eastern Anatolia) lying between the two states as frontiers even if it did lay it less ambiguously than earlier treaties. With it being a frontier, it was not exactly settled, and disputes and small skirmishes often occurs by the tribesmen and villagers in the area while later on in the 19th century the Iranians and the Ottomans repeatedly exploited the unsettled frontier to improve their position at the expense of their rival. As late as 1907, Ottoman troops were busy trying to turn northwestern Iran into the northeastern Ottoman Empire, creating an identity crisis for the people living in the area. The frontier established in the 1639 treaty resembled many things, but a pacified and settled frontier it was not. In times of war and peace, it witnessed a relatively free flow of goods and ideas, as well as of diseases, refugees, nomadic and seminomadic tribes, fugitives, and pilgrims.

On the relations of the empires, while it's true that both empires started having a normal relations, this was more because of wars and preoccupation with reforms rather than genuine friendship. It also doesn't immediately cease the sectarian rhetoric that defined Ottoman-Persian relationship, as during the peace negotiations of 1746, Nadir Shah lamented on the defining role sectarian differences played on both countries' relationship. Secularization happened more gradually over the course of years. However it was nevertheless clear that the Ottomans and Persians don't have any desire to fight another war and tried to preserve their normal relationship. In the period from 1640 to 1662, Isfahan received four Ottoman missions, and as many Safavid delegations headed for Istanbul. Kalb `Ali Khan went to Istanbul in 1655 and returned with an Ottoman envoy by the name of Ismail Aqa Mutafarriqeh Aqasi, who was received with the highest honors and respect in Isfahan. In the following three decades the exchange continued, albeit on a reduced level

So when the Eastern frontier went quiet, what did both empires do? The Ottomans, freed of the Safavids went on to settle scores in the Mediterannean, they fought the Venetians in Crete and Dalmatia, and intervened in Transylvanian affairs which will led to the siege of Vienna and ending with the treaty of Karlowitz. The Persians meanwhile, were pacifying its northern and eastern frontiers. In the south they checked Russian advances in the Caucasus and pacifying the tribes of Dagestan, while in the east they continued to tangle with the Mughals over the city of Qandahar.

Sources:

Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands: Making a Boundary, 1843-1914 by Sabri Ates

Osman's Dream by Caroline Finkel

Persia in Crisis by Rudi Matthee