Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 3111 2023-03-15 02:39:55 |
2 format correct -4 word(s) 3107 2023-03-15 02:43:20 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Dondani, J.R.; Iyer, J.; Tran, S.D. Surface Treatments of PEEK for Osseointegration to Bone. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42206 (accessed on 28 March 2024).
Dondani JR, Iyer J, Tran SD. Surface Treatments of PEEK for Osseointegration to Bone. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42206. Accessed March 28, 2024.
Dondani, Jay R., Janaki Iyer, Simon D. Tran. "Surface Treatments of PEEK for Osseointegration to Bone" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42206 (accessed March 28, 2024).
Dondani, J.R., Iyer, J., & Tran, S.D. (2023, March 15). Surface Treatments of PEEK for Osseointegration to Bone. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42206
Dondani, Jay R., et al. "Surface Treatments of PEEK for Osseointegration to Bone." Encyclopedia. Web. 15 March, 2023.
Surface Treatments of PEEK for Osseointegration to Bone
Edit

Polymers, in general, and Poly (Ether-Ether-Ketone) (PEEK) have emerged as potential alternatives to conventional osseous implant biomaterials. Due to its distinct advantages over metallic implants, PEEK has been gaining increasing attention as a prime candidate for orthopaedic and dental implants. Although a myriad of permutations and combinations of different surface treatments are employed to alter the surface topography of PEEK, for the sake of simplicity, these treatments have been classified into the following categories: physical treatment, chemical treatment, surface coating, and composite preparation, with the first surface treatment in the combination determining the classification. Though these terms are arbitrary and could lead to considerable overlap, physical and chemical treatments can be grouped into a subtractive form of surface modification while surface coating can be regarded as an additive form.

dental implant orthopedic implant implant biomaterial polymer

1. Physical Treatment

Physical treatments constitute plasma treatment, accelerated neutron atom beam (ANAB), photodynamic therapy, sandblasting, and laser irradiation.

1.1. Plasma Treatment

Plasma treatments primarily aim to decrease the contact angle of the PEEK surface by increasing the surface energy. Secondarily, the plasma treatments incorporate the element constituting the plasma onto the surface of a PEEK (Plasma Immersion Ion Implantation). This improves its response to human osteoblasts. Several elements have been successfully tested for the plasma treatment of PEEK (Table 1).
Table 1. Various plasma surface treatments of PEEK.
As evident from the studies, plasma treatments are utilized as a pre-treatment for several other surface treatments. Oxygen plasma was tested with various forms of radiation, whereas Argon plasma was combined with various chemical treatments. However, the rationale for the preference for such combinations could not be deciphered. Considering the decrease in contact angle and increase in the bioactivity of PEEK, nitrogen plasma was found to be most suited for implant applications of PEEK. Plasma treatments and sulphonation are the most common surface treatments used to increase the surface energy of PEEK to receive a bioactive coating. The two treatments are also used extensively together. In addition to increasing the surface energy and hydrophilicity of the surface, plasma immersion ion implantation also increases the hardness of the surface [18]. This property may decrease the tribological wear of orthopaedic implants due to gliding surfaces but is not important for dental implants [19]. However, due to the nature of electromagnetic radiation, plasma treatments are restricted by line-of-sight limitations. Therefore, it is difficult to utilize plasma for modifying implants with complex geometry [20].

1.2. Accelerated Neutral Atom Beam (ANAB)

Accelerated Neutral Atom Beam (ANAB) is a technique for employing an intensely directed beam of neutral gas atoms that improves the bioactivity of PEEK without altering its chemical or mechanical properties. Studies have demonstrated a decreased contact angle and increased bioactivity of osteogenic cells in response to ANAB-treated PEEK in-vitro [21][22][23][24] and an increased bond strength to bone in-vivo [22], as shown in Table 2. An in-vitro decrease in the bacterial colonization of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Staphylococcus epidermidis (S. epidermidis), and Escherichia coli (E.coli) have been demonstrated following treatment of PEEK with ANAB [23]. Though ANAB has exhibited significant improvement when used as a solitary treatment, its synergy with other treatments is yet to be tested. ANAB-treated PEEK surfaces are capable of osteoblast differentiation following osteoinduction in an osteogenic medium. However, ANAB-treated PEEK surfaces have not demonstrated independent osteoinduction ability [24].
Table 2. Results of ANAB of PEEK.

1.3. Photodynamic Treatment

Photodynamic treatment is primarily a therapeutic approach to decrease the microbial load on the surface. It involves the introduction of a drug on the surface of the biomaterial, followed by irradiation with a laser beam. It has been proven to decrease the microbial load and can be used in cases of inflammation around PEEK implants [25][26] (as given in Table 3). However, any potential role of photodynamic treatment in improving osseointegration in the absence of a periodontal pathology is yet to be investigated. However, significant improvements are required in light sources, absorption rates, and penetrating abilities of photosensitizers to decrease the exposure time required to modify PEEK surfaces with photodynamic treatment [26].

1.4. Sandblasting

Sandblasting is a widely used procedure in the surface treatment of titanium implants. It was broadly used when the surface roughening of implants was first advocated to enhance osseointegration. It is a process of physically roughening the surface by subjecting it to a stream of abrasive particles. This method has been shown to increase the proliferation and differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells and also to mitigate inflammatory mediators around the implant [27] (Table 3). As observed in titanium implants, blasting is one of the most widely used surface treatments but is insufficient to improve tissue response and bone-implant contact. [18] Due to the advent of newer physical methods to treat PEEK surfaces, sandblasting has been restricted as a pre-treatment before the application of a bioactive coating.

1.5. Laser

A femtosecond laser can be employed to induce periodic grooves on the surface of the PEEK implant, which improves the surface characteristics. Xie et al. confirmed that the PEEK surface after exposure to a femtosecond laser showed increased adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation of mouse bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (mBMSC) cells and increased expression and activity of alkaline phosphatase [28] (Table 3). However, these findings will require substantiation with in vivo studies.
Table 3. Results of photodynamic therapy, sandblasting, and laser on PEEK.

2. Chemical Treatment

2.1. Sulphonation

One of the most common surface treatments employed for PEEK, sulphonation, involves the exposure of the surface to concentrated sulphuric acid. (H2SO4). The term ‘sulphonation’ refers to the exposure to H2SO4 as well as its removal from the surface by an alkali, although in some studies it has been used exclusively for the exposure to the acid.
Studies demonstrating the exposure time of H2SO4 have yielded conflicting results; however, most studies have employed an exposure time of 3–5 min. Ma et al. proved that an exposure time of 5 min to 98% sulphuric acid yielded optimal surface topography [29]. Cheng et al. demonstrated that a 3 min sulphonation decreased the contact angle and increased pre-osteoblastic activity [30]. On the other hand, Wang et al. found that a short exposure time of 30 s was optimal for decreasing the contact angle of PEEK; however, the longest time of exposure in the study was only 90 s [31]. If an additive coating will be applied after sulphonation, the time of exposure is determined by the other treatments used in the combination, as well as the nature of the coating. The time of exposure is a critical factor as the chemical composition of PEEK, which imparts superior mechanical properties to PEEK, gets altered as a function of time.
There is a statistically significant influence of sulphonation on the contact angle of PEEK. This phenomenon makes sulphonation acceptable as a pre-treatment before the application of a surface coating on PEEK. Furthermore, sulphonation has been extensively used in combination with plasma treatment for activation of the PEEK surface to receive organic and inorganic coatings and continues to be the most studied chemical treatment for the PEEK surface.

2.2. Phosphonation

Phosphonation is the introduction of a phosphate group on the surface of a biomaterial. Various methods, such as diazonium chemistry and polymerization of Vinyl phosphonic acid, have been used to graft the functional group on the surface of PEEK, which has increased cell adhesion, spreading, proliferation, and differentiation in vitro and the bone–implant contact ratio in vivo [32][33][34]. It serves as an optimal surface treatment, but the compatibility of phosphonation with other treatments will have to be assessed.

2.3. Silanization

Silanization is the introduction of a silane group to an object or surface. Silanization is utilized to improve the surface characteristics of materials like glass and metal oxides. It has been proven to increase the cell adhesion, spreading, proliferation, and differentiation of pre-osteoblasts in vitro, but in vivo studies confirming the same are not available.

3. Surface Coatings

3.1. Hydroxyapatite Coating

Hydroxyapatite (HA) is the main inorganic component of the human bone; hence, it is intuitive to incorporate HA on the surface of PEEK to increase its bioactivity. HA has regularly been employed as a surface treatment to increase the bioactivity of metallic implants. However, the temperature required to incorporate HA is higher than the temperature range at which PEEK is chemically stable. Hence, in most studies, an intermediate layer of Titanium or Yttria Stabilized Zirconia (YSZ) was used to shield PEEK from thermal insult [35][36][37] (Figure 1). The thickness of the intermediate layer has been found to influence the coating’s bond strength to PEEK. [37] HA coating is thermally treated to transform it into a crystalline state from an amorphous bioinert state. This finding is consistent with the fact that HA found in the human bone occurs in a crystalline state. In terms of bioactivity and bone strength to PEEK, heat-treated crystalline HA outperformed untreated amorphous HA [35][36][37][38] (Table 4).
Figure 1. Insulation of PEEK by Titanium or YSZ intermediate layer from heated HA during crystallisation process.
Table 4. Results of Hydroxyapatite coating on PEEK.

3.2. Titanium Coating

Titanium is the most widely used implant biomaterial due to its biocompatibility and osseointegration potential. The phenomenon of osseointegration was also accidentally discovered using titanium when titanium chambers that were used for studying the circulation of a healing fibula in a rabbit could not be removed due to their fusion with the bone [39]. A stable layer of titanium dioxide is formed on the surface of titanium on exposure to air [40][41]. This oxide layer has a high dielectric constant, which leads to the adsorption of proteins from blood on the surface, which is the first step in the cascade of events leading to osseointegration. Therefore, a coating of titanium or titanium oxide on the surface of PEEK would give the implant the favorable mechanical properties of PEEK and the higher bond strength of titanium with bone. In vitro studies have shown an increase in adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation of pre-osteoblasts in reaction to a titanium coating. In vivo studies have also inferred that the coating increases osseointegration and bond strength with bone (Table 5). 
Table 5. Results of Titanium coating on PEEK.

3.3. Anti-Microbial Agent Coating

Anti-microbial coatings like gentamycin and selenium have been used in vitro [46][47] as well as in vivo [46] in combination with a carrier agent. These coatings have also been shown to increase the bioactivity of PEEK in addition to its antimicrobial activity against microbes, such as S. aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa), as shown in Table 6. However, the sustainability of the release of these agents will have to be titrated against the complexity of the surface treatments to determine their feasibility. Additional studies quantifying antimicrobial action as a function of time are required to establish the durability of these coatings in an in vivo environment.
Table 6. Results of anti-microbial agent coatings on PEEK.

3.4. Biomolecule Coating

Anti-inflammatory agents such as dexamethasone have been used to combat acute and chronic inflammatory responses of the body to noxious stimuli. Combinations of dexamethasone with other anti-inflammatory agents like interleukin-6 (IL-6) or metal-organic frameworks like Zn-Mg-MOF-74 have been proven to increase the anti-inflammatory response and antimicrobial activity of PEEK, respectively [49][50] (Table 7). Dexamethasone can be used as an implant coating in cases where the prognosis is compromised due to decreased local host immunity to infections, as supported by the current evidence.

3.5. Polymer Coating

A coating of polymers like 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC) on PEEK surfaces has been studied and shown to decrease the contact angle of PEEK, increase its wettability, and facilitate osseointegration [51] (Table 7). However, in vivo demonstration of the increase in hydrophilicity has not been documented.
Table 7. Results of biomolecule and polymer coatings on PEEK.

4. Composites of Poly (Ether-Ether-Ketone)

Composites of PEEK with various metals, oxides, inorganic fibers, and polymers have been used for improving the clinical performance of individual constituent biomaterials. The selection of material to be used with PEEK and the method of fabrication depend on the intended use of the implant. However, the main purpose of combining PEEK with other biomaterials is to improve the mechanical properties, with the improved surface characteristics being a by-product of the combination. Moreover, most composites of PEEK require an additional surface treatment for osseointegration. An exception in the following studies is a composite of HA and PEEK that did not require additional surface treatment and increased the adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation of pre-osteoblasts (Table 8), though in vivo studies are missing to substantiate the same. Most composites of PEEK are carbon-fiber reinforced PEEK (CFR PEEK) composites, which always require additional additive treatments for osseointegration.
Table 8. Composites of PEEK and surface treatments.

References

  1. Waser-Althaus, J.; Salamon, A.; Waser, M.; Padeste, C.; Kreutzer, M.; Pieles, U.; Müller, B.; Peters, K. Differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells on plasma-treated polyetheretherketone. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2014, 25, 515–525.
  2. Gan, K.; Liu, H.; Jiang, L.; Liu, X.; Song, X.; Niu, D.; Chen, T.; Liu, C. Bioactivity and antibacterial effect of nitrogen plasma immersion ion implantation on polyetheretherketone. Dent. Mater. 2016, 32, e263–e274.
  3. Han, X.; Sharma, N.; Spintzyk, S.; Zhou, Y.; Xu, Z.; Thieringer, F.M.; Rupp, F. Tailoring the biologic responses of 3D printed PEEK medical implants by plasma functionalization. Dent. Mater. 2022, 38, 1083–1098.
  4. Ha, S.-W.; Kirch, M.; Birchler, F.; Eckert, K.-L.; Mayer, J.; Wintermantel, E.; Sittig, C.; Pfund-Klingenfuss, I.; Textor, M.; Spencer, N.D.; et al. Surface activation of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and formation of calcium phosphate coatings by precipitation. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 1997, 8, 683–690.
  5. Liu, C.; Bai, J.; Wang, Y.; Chen, L.; Wang, D.; Ni, S.; Liu, H. The effects of three cold plasma treatments on the osteogenic activity and antibacterial property of PEEK. Dent. Mater. 2021, 37, 81–93.
  6. Tsougeni, K.; Vourdas, N.; Tserepi, A.; Gogolides, E.; Cardinaud, C. Mechanisms of Oxygen Plasma Nanotexturing of Organic Polymer Surfaces: From Stable Super Hydrophilic to Super Hydrophobic Surfaces. Langmuir 2009, 25, 11748–11759.
  7. Rochford, E.T.J.; Subbiahdoss, G.; Moriarty, T.F.; Poulsson, A.H.C.; van der Mei, H.C.; Busscher, H.J.; Richards, R.G. An in vitro investigation of bacteria-osteoblast competition on oxygen plasma-modified PEEK: An in vitro investigation of bacteria-osteoblast competition. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2014, 102, 4427–4434.
  8. Wang, H.; Lu, T.; Meng, F.; Zhu, H.; Liu, X. Enhanced osteoblast responses to poly ether ether ketone surface modified by water plasma immersion ion implantation. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2014, 117, 89–97.
  9. Czwartos, J.; Budner, B.; Bartnik, A.; Wachulak, P.; Butruk-Raszeja, B.A.; Lech, A.; Ciach, T.; Fiedorowicz, H. Effect of Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) Radiation and EUV Induced, N2 and O2 Based Plasmas on a PEEK Surface’s Physico-Chemical Properties and MG63 Cell Adhesion. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 8455.
  10. Kizuki, T.; Matsushita, T.; Kokubo, T. Apatite-forming PEEK with TiO2 surface layer coating. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2015, 26, 41.
  11. Chen, M.; Ouyang, L.; Lu, T.; Wang, H.; Meng, F.; Yang, Y.; Ning, C.; Ma, J.; Liu, X. Enhanced Bioactivity and Bacteriostasis of Surface Fluorinated Polyetheretherketone. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 16824–16833.
  12. Ouyang, L.; Chen, M.; Wang, D.; Lu, T.; Wang, H.; Meng, F.; Yang, Y.; Ma, J.; Yeung, K.W.K.; Liu, X. Nano Textured PEEK Surface for Enhanced Osseointegration. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 5, 1279–1289.
  13. Akkan, C.K.; Hammadeh, M.E.; May, A.; Park, H.-W.; Abdul-Khaliq, H.; Strunskus, T.; Aktas, O.C. Surface topography and wetting modifications of PEEK for implant applications. Lasers Med. Sci. 2014, 29, 1633–1639.
  14. Chen, T.; Chen, Q.; Fu, H.; Wang, D.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, M.; Liu, H. Construction and performance evaluation of a sustained release implant material polyetheretherketone with antibacterial properties. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2021, 126, 112109.
  15. Wakelin, E.A.; Yeo, G.C.; McKenzie, D.R.; Bilek, M.M.M.; Weiss, A.S. Plasma ion implantation enabled bio-functionalization of PEEK improves osteoblastic activity. APL Bioeng. 2018, 2, 026109.
  16. Qin, S.; Lu, Z.; Gan, K.; Qiao, C.; Li, B.; Chen, T.; Gao, Y.; Jiang, L.; Liu, H. Construction of a BMP -2 gene delivery system for polyetheretherketone bone implant material and its effect on bone formation in vitro. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2022, 110, 2075–2088.
  17. Liu, X.; Han, F.; Zhao, P.; Lin, C.; Wen, X.; Ye, X. Layer-by-layer self-assembled multilayers on PEEK implants improve osseointegration in an osteoporosis rabbit model. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2017, 13, 1423–1433.
  18. Jemat, A.; Ghazali, M.J.; Razali, M.; Otsuka, Y. Surface Modifications and Their Effects on Titanium Dental Implants. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 791725.
  19. Albrektsson, T.; Becker, W.; Coli, P.; Jemt, T.; Mölne, J.; Sennerby, L. Bone loss around oral and orthopedic implants: An immunologically based condition. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2019, 21, 786–795.
  20. Lu, T.; Wen, J.; Qian, S.; Cao, H.; Ning, C.; Pan, X.; Jiang, X.; Liu, X.; Chu, P.K. Enhanced osteointegration on tantalum-implanted polyetheretherketone surface with bone-like elastic modulus. Biomaterials 2015, 51, 173–183.
  21. Khoury, J.; Selezneva, I.; Pestov, S.; Tarassov, V.; Ermakov, A.; Mikheev, A.; Lazov, M.; Kirkpatrick, S.R.; Shashkov, D.; Smolkov, A. Surface bioactivation of PEEK by neutral atom beam technology. Bioact. Mater. 2019, 4, 132–141.
  22. Khoury, J.; Maxwell, M.; Cherian, R.E.; Bachand, J.; Kurz, A.C.; Walsh, M.; Assad, M.; Svrluga, R.C. Enhanced bioactivity and osseointegration of PEEK with accelerated neutral atom beam technology: Enhanced Bioactivity and Osseointegration of Peek. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2017, 105, 531–543.
  23. Webster, T.J.; Shallenberger, J.R.; Edelman, E.R.; Khoury, J. Accelerated Neutral Atom Beam (ANAB) Modified Poly-Ether-Ether-Ketone for Increasing In Vitro Bone Cell Functions and Reducing Bacteria Colonization without Drugs or Antibiotics. J. Biomed. Nanotechnol. 2022, 18, 788–795.
  24. Ajami, S.; Coathup, M.J.; Khoury, J.; Blunn, G.W. Augmenting the bioactivity of polyetheretherketone using a novel accelerated neutral atom beam technique: Bioactivity of polyetheretherketone. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2017, 105, 1438–1446.
  25. Binhasan, M.; Alhamdan, M.M.; Al-Aali, K.A.; Vohra, F.; Abduljabbar, T. Shear bond characteristics and surface roughness of poly-ether-ether-ketone treated with contemporary surface treatment regimes bonded to composite resin. Photodiagnosis Photodyn. Ther. 2022, 38, 102765.
  26. Peng, T.-Y.; Lin, D.-J.; Mine, Y.; Tasi, C.-Y.; Li, P.-J.; Shih, Y.-H.; Chiu, K.-C.; Wang, T.-H.; Hsia, S.-M.; Shieh, T.-M. Biofilm Formation on the Surface of (Poly)Ether-Ether-Ketone and In Vitro Antimicrobial Efficacy of Photodynamic Therapy on Peri-Implant Mucositis. Polymers 2021, 13, 940.
  27. Sunarso; Tsuchiya, A.; Fukuda, N.; Toita, R.; Tsuru, K.; Ishikawa, K. Effect of micro-roughening of poly(ether ether ketone) on bone marrow derived stem cell and macrophage responses, and osseointegration. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 2018, 29, 1375–1388.
  28. Xie, H.; Zhang, C.; Wang, R.; Tang, H.; Mu, M.; Li, H.; Guo, Y.; Yang, L.; Tang, K. Femtosecond laser-induced periodic grooves and nanopore clusters make a synergistic effect on osteogenic differentiation. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2021, 208, 112021.
  29. Ma, R.; Wang, J.; Li, C.; Ma, K.; Wei, J.; Yang, P.; Guo, D.; Wang, K.; Wang, W. Effects of different sulfonation times and post-treatment methods on the characterization and cytocompatibility of sulfonated PEEK. J. Biomater. Appl. 2020, 35, 342–352.
  30. Cheng, Q.; Yuan, B.; Chen, X.; Yang, X.; Lin, H.; Zhu, X.; Zhang, K.; Zhang, X. Regulation of surface micro/nano structure and composition of polyetheretherketone and their influence on the behavior of MC3T3-E1 pre-osteoblasts. J. Mater. Chem. B 2019, 7, 5713–5724.
  31. Wang, W.; Luo, C.J.; Huang, J.; Edirisinghe, M. PEEK surface modification by fast ambient-temperature sulfonation for bone implant applications. J. R. Soc. Interface 2019, 16, 20180955.
  32. Liu, L.; Zheng, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Yu, L.; Hu, Z.; Liu, Y. Surface phosphonation treatment shows dose-dependent enhancement of the bioactivity of polyetheretherketone. RSC Adv. 2019, 9, 30076–30086.
  33. Zheng, Y.; Liu, L.; Xiao, L.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, Y. Enhanced osteogenic activity of phosphorylated polyetheretherketone via surface-initiated grafting polymerization of vinylphosphonic acid. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2019, 173, 591–598.
  34. Mahjoubi, H.; Buck, E.; Manimunda, P.; Farivar, R.; Chromik, R.; Murshed, M.; Cerruti, M. Surface phosphonation enhances hydroxyapatite coating adhesion on polyetheretherketone and its osseointegration potential. Acta Biomater. 2017, 47, 149–158.
  35. Durham, J.W.; Allen, M.J.; Rabiei, A. Preparation, characterization and in vitro response of bioactive coatings on polyether ether ketone: Response Of Bioactive Coatings on Polyether Ether Ketone. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2017, 105, 560–567.
  36. Rabiei, A.; Sandukas, S. Processing and evaluation of bioactive coatings on polymeric implants: Processing and Evaluation of Bioactive HA Coatings on PEEK. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2013, 101A, 2621–2629.
  37. Ozeki, K.; Masuzawa, T.; Aoki, H. Fabrication of hydroxyapatite thin films on polyetheretherketone substrates using a sputtering technique. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2017, 72, 576–582.
  38. Johansson, P.; Jimbo, R.; Kjellin, P.; Chrcanovic, B.; Wennerberg, A.; Currie, F. Biomechanical evaluation and surface characterization of a nano-modified surface on PEEK implants: A study in the rabbit tibia. Int. J. Nanomed. 2014, 9, 3903.
  39. Dhinakarsamy, V.; Jayesh, R. Osseointegration. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2015, 7, 228.
  40. Karthik, K.; Sivakumar; Sivaraj; Thangaswamy, V. Evaluation of implant success: A review of past and present concepts. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2013, 5, 117.
  41. Tschernitschek, H.; Borchers, L.; Geurtsen, W. Nonalloyed titanium as a bioinert metal—A review. Quintessence Int. Berl. Ger. 2005, 36, 523–530.
  42. Liu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Xiao, L.; Ge, X.; Öner, F.C.; Xu, H. Vacuum plasma sprayed porous titanium coating on polyetheretherketone for ACDF improves the osteogenic ability: An in vitro and in vivo study. Biomed. Microdevices 2021, 23, 21.
  43. Yang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Komasa, S.; Kusumoto, T.; Kuwamoto, S.; Okunishi, T.; Kobayashi, Y.; Hashimoto, Y.; Sekino, T.; Okazaki, J. Immunomodulatory Properties and Osteogenic Activity of Polyetheretherketone Coated with Titanate Nanonetwork Structures. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 612.
  44. Shimizu, T.; Fujibayashi, S.; Yamaguchi, S.; Yamamoto, K.; Otsuki, B.; Takemoto, M.; Tsukanaka, M.; Kizuki, T.; Matsushita, T.; Kokubo, T.; et al. Bioactivity of sol–gel-derived TiO2 coating on polyetheretherketone: In vitro and in vivo studies. Acta Biomater. 2016, 35, 305–317.
  45. Tsou, H.-K.; Chi, M.-H.; Hung, Y.-W.; Chung, C.-J.; He, J.-L. In Vivo Osseointegration Performance of Titanium Dioxide Coating Modified Polyetheretherketone Using Arc Ion Plating for Spinal Implant Application. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 328943.
  46. Xue, Z.; Wang, Z.; Sun, A.; Huang, J.; Wu, W.; Chen, M.; Hao, X.; Huang, Z.; Lin, X.; Weng, S. Rapid construction of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) biological implants incorporated with brushite (CaHPO4·2H2O) and antibiotics for anti-infection and enhanced osseointegration. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2020, 111, 110782.
  47. Wang, Q.; Mejía Jaramillo, A.; Pavon, J.J.; Webster, T.J. Red selenium nanoparticles and gray selenium nanorods as antibacterial coatings for PEEK medical devices: Antibacterial Coatings for Peek Medical Devices. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2016, 104, 1352–1358.
  48. Hu, C.-C.; Kumar, S.R.; Vi, T.T.T.; Huang, Y.-T.; Chen, D.W.; Lue, S.J. Facilitating GL13K Peptide Grafting on Polyetheretherketone via 1-Ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)carbodiimide: Surface Properties and Antibacterial Activity. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 23, 359.
  49. Xie, L.; Wang, G.; Wu, Y.; Liao, Q.; Mo, S.; Ren, X.; Tong, L.; Zhang, W.; Guan, M.; Pan, H.; et al. Programmed surface on poly(aryl-ether-ether-ketone) initiating immune mediation and fulfilling bone regeneration sequentially. Innovation 2021, 2, 100148.
  50. Xiao, T.; Fan, L.; Liu, R.; Huang, X.; Wang, S.; Xiao, L.; Pang, Y.; Li, D.; Liu, J.; Min, Y. Fabrication of Dexamethasone-Loaded Dual-Metal–Organic Frameworks on Polyetheretherketone Implants with Bacteriostasis and Angiogenesis Properties for Promoting Bone Regeneration. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13, 50836–50850.
  51. Kyomoto, M.; Moro, T.; Takatori, Y.; Kawaguchi, H.; Nakamura, K.; Ishihara, K. Self-initiated surface grafting with poly(2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine) on poly(ether-ether-ketone). Biomaterials 2010, 31, 1017–1024.
  52. Díez-Pascual, A.M.; Díez-Vicente, A.L. Nano-TiO2 Reinforced PEEK/PEI Blends as Biomaterials for Load-Bearing Implant Applications. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015, 7, 5561–5573.
  53. Oladapo, B.I.; Ismail, S.O.; Bowoto, O.K.; Omigbodun, F.T.; Olawumi, M.A.; Muhammad, M.A. Lattice design and 3D-printing of PEEK with Ca10(OH)(PO4)3 and in-vitro bio-composite for bone implant. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 165, 50–62.
  54. Li, J.; Qian, S.; Ning, C.; Liu, X. rBMSC and bacterial responses to isoelastic carbon fiber-reinforced poly(ether-ether-ketone) modified by zirconium implantation. J. Mater. Chem. B 2016, 4, 96–104.
  55. Yamane, Y.; Yabutsuka, T.; Takaoka, Y.; Ishizaki, C.; Takai, S.; Fujibayashi, S. Surface Modification of Carbon Fiber-Polyetheretherketone Composite to Impart Bioactivity by Using Apatite Nuclei. Materials 2021, 14, 6691.
  56. Du, T.; Zhao, S.; Dong, W.; Ma, W.; Zhou, X.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, M. Surface Modification of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polyetheretherketone with MXene Nanosheets for Enhanced Photothermal Antibacterial Activity and Osteogenicity. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2022, 8, 2375–2389.
  57. Miyazaki, T.; Matsunami, C.; Shirosaki, Y. Bioactive carbon–PEEK composites prepared by chemical surface treatment. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2017, 70, 71–75.
  58. Yabutsuka, T.; Fukushima, K.; Hiruta, T.; Takai, S.; Yao, T. Fabrication of Bioactive Fiber-reinforced PEEK and MXD6 by Incorporation of Precursor of Apatite: Fabrication of bioactive fiber-reinforced peek and mxd6. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2018, 106, 2254–2265.
  59. Addai Asante, N.; Wang, Y.; Bakhet, S.; Kareem, S.; Owusu, K.A.; Hu, Y.; Appiah, M. Ambient temperature sulfonated carbon fiber reinforced PEEK with hydroxyapatite and reduced graphene oxide hydroxyapatite composite coating. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2021, 109, 2174–2183.
More
Information
Subjects: Polymer Science
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register : , ,
View Times: 206
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 15 Mar 2023
1000/1000