PEEK stress-shielding with artificial bone for dental implants
Source abstract
Abstract
Dental titanium implants and their surface modifications markedly improve implant biocompatibility. However, studies evaluating the mechanical biocompatibility of implants are scarce. In particular, the analysis of mechanical biocompatibility deficiencies leading to stress shield-induced bone resorption. Recently, we focused on using PEEK as a dental material. This study explored the hypothesis that PEEK implants improve the stress shielding of titanium. In this study, artificial bone surfaces were examined to measure strains on the artificial bone surface under compressive loading with the implants in place. Additionally, 3D image analysis of the fracture state inside the bone tissue was performed using micro-CT (µCT). This hypothesis was supported by µCT imaging analysis of bone tissue changes under stress, which revealed that PEEK implants transfer greater loads than titanium implants. µCT imaging and statistical analysis showed that bone porosity had little effect on stress shielding.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Titanium Alloys Microstructure and Properties · Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Dental Engineering, Tsurumi University School of Dental Medicine
Department of Mathematics, Tsurumi University School of Dental Medicine
Tsurumi University
References (29)
Show source-provided references
1. 1) Madeira S, Gasik M, Souza JCM, Silva FS, Henriques B, Damping and mechanical behavior of metal-ceramic composites applied to novel dental restorative systems. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2019; 90: 239-247.10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.09.046 ↗
2. 2) Uto Y, Kuroshima S, Nakano T, Ishimoto T, Inaba N, Uchida Y, et al. Effects of mechanical repetitive load on bone quality around implants in rat maxillae. PloS one 2017; 12: e0189893.10.1371/journal.pone.0189893 ↗
3. 3) Huiskes R, Ruimerman R, Van Lenthe GH, Janssen JD. Effects of mechanical forces on maintenance and adaptation of form in trabecular bone. Nature 2000; 405: 704-706.10.1038/35015116 ↗
4. 4) Faverani LP, Barão VA, Ramalho-Ferreira G, Delben JA, Ferreira MB, Garcia Júnior IR, et al. The influence of bone quality on the biomechanical behavior of full-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol 2014; 37: 164-170.10.1016/j.msec.2014.01.013 ↗
5. 5) Mishchenko O, Ovchynnykov O, Kapustian O, Pogorielov M. New Zr-Ti-Nb alloy for medical application: Development, chemical and mechanical properties, and biocompatibility. Materials 2020; 13: 1306.10.3390/ma13061306 ↗
6. 6) Nag S, Banerjee R, Fraser HL. A novel combinatorial approach for understanding microstructural evolution and its relationship to mechanical properties in metallic biomaterials. Acta Biomater 2007; 3: 369-376.10.1016/j.actbio.2006.08.005 ↗
7. 7) Niinomi M. Recent metallic materials for biomedical applications. Metall Mater Trans A 2002; 33: 477-486.10.1007/s11661-002-0109-2 ↗
8. 8) Didier P, Piotrowski B, Fischer M, Laheurte P. Mechanical stability of custom-made implants: Numerical study of anatomical device and low elastic Young’s modulus alloy. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol 2017; 74: 399-409.10.1016/j.msec.2016.12.031 ↗
9. 9) Hu N, Xie L, Liao Q, Gao A, Zheng Y, Pan H, et al. A more defective substrate leads to a less defective passive layer: Enhancing the mechanical strength, corrosion resistance and anti-inflammatory response of the low-modulus Ti-45Nb alloy by grain refinement. Acta Biomater 2021; 126: 524-536.10.1016/j.actbio.2021.02.045 ↗
10. 10) Schulze C, Weinmann M, Schweigel C, Kessler O, Bader R. Mechanical properties of a newly additive manufactured implant material based on Ti-42Nb. Materials (Basel) 2018; 11: 124.10.3390/ma11010124 ↗
11. 11) Yang F, Chen C, Zhou Q, Gong Y, Li R, Li C, et al. Laser beam melting 3D printing of Ti6Al4V based porous structured dental implants: Fabrication, biocompatibility analysis and photoelastic study. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 45360.10.1038/srep45360 ↗
12. 12) Huang MT, Juan PK, Chen SY, Wu CJ, Wen SC, Cho YC, et al. The potential of the three-dimensional printed titanium mesh implant for cranioplasty surgery applications: Biomechanical behaviors and surface properties. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2019; 97: 412-419.10.1016/j.msec.2018.11.075 ↗
13. 13) Gopi G, Shanmugasundaram S, Krishnakumar Raja VB, Afradh KM. Evaluation of serum metal ion levels in dental implant patients: A prospective study. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2021; 11: 261-265.10.4103/ams.ams_70_21 ↗
14. 14) Robertson DM, Pierre LS, Chahal R. Preliminary observations of bone ingrowth into porous materials. J Biomed Mater Res 1976; 10: 335-344.10.1002/jbm.820100304 ↗
15. 15) Cameron HU, Macnab I, Pilliar RM. A porous metal system for joint replacement surgery. Int J Artif Organs 1978; 1: 104-109.
16. 16) Head WC, Bauk DJ, Emerson RH Jr. Titanium as the material of choice for cementless femoral components in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995; 311: 85-90.
17. 17) Wang B, Huang M, Dang P, Xie J, Zhang X, Yan X. PEEK in fixed dental prostheses: Application and adhesion improvement. Polymers (Basel) 2022; 8: 14: 2323.10.3390/polym14122323 ↗
18. 18) Kurtz SM, Devine JN. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials 2007; 28: 4845-4869.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.013 ↗
19. 19) Cook SD, Rust-Dawicki AM. Preliminary evaluation of titanium-coated PEEK dental implants J Oral Implantol 1995; 21: 176-181.
20. 20) Dondani JR, Iyer J, Tran SD. Surface treatments of PEEK for osseointegration to bone. Biomolecules 2023; 13: 464.10.3390/biom13030464 ↗
21. 21) Limbert G, van Lierde C, Muraru OL, Walboomers XF, Frank M, Hansson S, et al. Trabecular bone strains around a dental implant and associated micromotions —A micro-CT-based three-dimensional finite element study. J Biomech 2010; 7: 1251-1261.10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.01.003 ↗
22. 22) Alkan I, Sertgöz A, Ekici B. Influence of occlusal forces on stress distribution in preloaded dental implant screws. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91: 319-325.10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.01.016 ↗
23. 23) Atieh MA, Shahmiri RA. Evaluation of optimal taper of immediately loaded wide-diameter implants: A finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol 2013; 39: 123-132.10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00104 ↗
24. 24) Tsubota K, Adachi T. Spatial and temporal regulation of cancellous bone structure: Characterization of a rate equation of trabecular surface remodeling. Med Eng Phys 2005; 27: 305-311.10.1016/j.medengphy.2004.09.013 ↗
25. 25) Bechtold JE, Mouzin O, Kidder L, Søballe K. A controlled experimental model of revision implants: Part II. Implementation with loaded titanium implants and bone graft. Acta Orthop Scan 2001; 72: 650-656.10.1080/000164701317269102 ↗
26. 26) Mouzin O, Søballe K, Bechtold JE. Loading improves anchorage of hydroxyapatite implants more than titanium implants. J Biomed Mater Res 2001; 58: 61-68.10.1002/1097-4636(2001)58:1<61::AID-JBM90>3.0.CO;2-S ↗
27. 27) Skripitz R, Aspenberg P. Early effect of parathyroid hormone (1–34) on implant fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; 392: 427-432.10.1097/00003086-200111000-00056 ↗
28. 28) Van der Vis HM, Aspenberg P, Marti RK, Tigchelaar W, Van Noorden CJ. Fluid pressure causes bone resorption in a rabbit model of prosthetic loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; 350: 201-208.10.1097/00003086-199805000-00028 ↗
29. 29) Patil V, Naik N, Gadicherla S, Smriti K, Raju A, Rathee U.Biomechanical behavior of bioactive material in dental implant: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. The Scientific World Journal 7; 2020: 2363298.10.1155/2020/2363298 ↗