Cargando…
Surface Treatments of PEEK for Osseointegration to Bone
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....
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10046336/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36979399 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biom13030464 |
_version_ | 1785013647401025536 |
---|---|
author | Dondani, Jay R. Iyer, Janaki Tran, Simon D. |
author_facet | Dondani, Jay R. Iyer, Janaki Tran, Simon D. |
author_sort | Dondani, Jay R. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. However, PEEK has a highly hydrophobic and bioinert surface that attenuates the differentiation and proliferation of osteoblasts and leads to implant failure. Several improvements have been made to the osseointegration potential of PEEK, which can be classified into three main categories: (1) surface functionalization with bioactive agents by physical or chemical means; (2) incorporation of bioactive materials either as surface coatings or as composites; and (3) construction of three-dimensionally porous structures on its surfaces. The physical treatments, such as plasma treatments of various elements, accelerated neutron beams, or conventional techniques like sandblasting and laser or ultraviolet radiation, change the micro-geometry of the implant surface. The chemical treatments change the surface composition of PEEK and should be titrated at the time of exposure. The implant surface can be incorporated with a bioactive material that should be selected following the desired use, loading condition, and antimicrobial load around the implant. For optimal results, a combination of the methods above is utilized to compensate for the limitations of individual methods. This review summarizes these methods and their combinations for optimizing the surface of PEEK for utilization as an implanted biomaterial. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10046336 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100463362023-03-29 Surface Treatments of PEEK for Osseointegration to Bone Dondani, Jay R. Iyer, Janaki Tran, Simon D. Biomolecules Review 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. However, PEEK has a highly hydrophobic and bioinert surface that attenuates the differentiation and proliferation of osteoblasts and leads to implant failure. Several improvements have been made to the osseointegration potential of PEEK, which can be classified into three main categories: (1) surface functionalization with bioactive agents by physical or chemical means; (2) incorporation of bioactive materials either as surface coatings or as composites; and (3) construction of three-dimensionally porous structures on its surfaces. The physical treatments, such as plasma treatments of various elements, accelerated neutron beams, or conventional techniques like sandblasting and laser or ultraviolet radiation, change the micro-geometry of the implant surface. The chemical treatments change the surface composition of PEEK and should be titrated at the time of exposure. The implant surface can be incorporated with a bioactive material that should be selected following the desired use, loading condition, and antimicrobial load around the implant. For optimal results, a combination of the methods above is utilized to compensate for the limitations of individual methods. This review summarizes these methods and their combinations for optimizing the surface of PEEK for utilization as an implanted biomaterial. MDPI 2023-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10046336/ /pubmed/36979399 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biom13030464 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Dondani, Jay R. Iyer, Janaki Tran, Simon D. Surface Treatments of PEEK for Osseointegration to Bone |
title | Surface Treatments of PEEK for Osseointegration to Bone |
title_full | Surface Treatments of PEEK for Osseointegration to Bone |
title_fullStr | Surface Treatments of PEEK for Osseointegration to Bone |
title_full_unstemmed | Surface Treatments of PEEK for Osseointegration to Bone |
title_short | Surface Treatments of PEEK for Osseointegration to Bone |
title_sort | surface treatments of peek for osseointegration to bone |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10046336/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36979399 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biom13030464 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dondanijayr surfacetreatmentsofpeekforosseointegrationtobone AT iyerjanaki surfacetreatmentsofpeekforosseointegrationtobone AT transimond surfacetreatmentsofpeekforosseointegrationtobone |