journal article·2025-07-31Open access

Characterization of Expulsion, Cell Viability, and Bacterial Attachment of Enhanced Sulfonated Hydrothermally Treated PEEK Surfaces for Implant Applications

Kadie Nobles, Amol V. Janorkar, Michael D. Roach, Mary E. Marquart, Randall Scott Williamson

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 15

Abstract

Porosity and roughened surfaces of implant materials have been shown to lead to improved cellular attachment and enhanced osseointegration. These topography changes in the surface also aid in the mechanical interlocking of the material to the bone. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has emerged as a popular alternative to titanium-based implants due to its lack of stress-shielding effect, radiolucency, and high chemical resistance. However, PEEK is bioinert, thus requiring surface modifications to elicit appropriate cellular responses that lead to successful osteointegration of the material in vivo. Sulfonation is a process used to modify the surface of PEEK, which can be controlled by varying parameters such as soak time and soak temperature, thereby fabricating a porous surface on the material. This work aimed to ensure the repeatability of a previously optimized sulfonated and hydrothermally treated PEEK surface and subsequently observe the mechanical properties, bacterial attachment, and cellular response of pre-osteoblast MC3T3-E1 cells on the surface. This study found that while all PEEK surfaces had similar cell and Staphylococcus aureus attachment, the sulfonated and hydrothermally treated PEEK (peak mean load of 605 N, p ≤ 0.0001) and the sulfonated only PEEK (peak mean load of 495 N, p = 0.0240) had a higher level of performance in expulsion testing than smooth PEEK due to its mechanical interlocking ability. Imaging and contact angle analysis confirm that a surface with repeatable porosity can be achieved.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty · Titanium Alloys Microstructure and Properties

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Biomedical Materials Science, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS 39216, USA

Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS 39216, USA

Funding

Zavation Medical Products, LLC

References (61)

Show source-provided references
1. Strontium doped calcium phosphate coatings on poly(etheretherketone) (PEEK) by pulsed electron deposition10.1016/j.surfcoat.2017.04.012 ↗
2. Buck, E., Li, H., and Cerruti, M. (2020). Surface Modification Strategies to Improve the Osseointegration of Poly(etheretherketone) and Its Composites. Macromol. Biosci., 20.10.1002/mabi.201900271 ↗
3. Material characterization and Streptococcus oralis adhesion on Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium surfaces used in implantology10.1007/s10856-020-06408-3 ↗
4. A review of PEEK polymer’s properties and its use in prosthodontics
5. Strontium/adiponectin co-decoration modulates the osteogenic activity of nano-morphologic polyetheretherketone implant10.1016/j.colsurfb.2018.12.056 ↗
6. Zheng, Z., Liu, P., Zhang, X., Jingguo, x., Yongjie, w., Zou, X., Mei, X., Zhang, S., and Zhang, S. (2022). Strategies to improve bioactive and antibacterial properties of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for use as orthopedic implants. Mater. Today Bio, 16.10.1016/j.mtbio.2022.100402 ↗
7. Gaseous sulfur trioxide induced controllable sulfonation promoting biomineralization and osseointegration of polyetheretherketone implants
8. Biomaterial strategies for engineering implants for enhanced osseointegration and bone repair10.1016/j.addr.2015.03.013 ↗
9. Current methods of preventing aseptic loosening and improving osseointegration of titanium implants in cementless total hip arthroplasty: A review10.1177/0300060517732697 ↗
10. Implant osseointegration and the role of microroughness and nanostructures: Lessons for spine implants10.1016/j.actbio.2014.03.037 ↗
11. Current strategies to improve the bioactivity of PEEK10.3390/ijms15045426 ↗
12. Ma, Z., Zhao, X., Zhao, J., Zhao, Z., Wang, Q., and Zhang, C. (2020). Biologically Modified Polyether Ether Ketone as Dental Implant Material. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol., 8.10.3389/fbioe.2020.620537 ↗
13. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as a Biomaterial: An Overview
14. Papathanasiou, I., Kamposiora, P., Papavasiliou, G., and Ferrari, M. (2020). The use of PEEK in digital prosthodontics: A narrative review. BMC Oral Health, 20.10.1186/s12903-020-01202-7 ↗
15. Osseointegration: An update10.1007/s13191-013-0252-z ↗
16. Stich, T., Alagboso, F., Křenek, T., Kovářík, T., Alt, V., and Docheva, D. (2022). Implant-bone-interface: Reviewing the impact of titanium surface modifications on osteogenic processes in vitro and in vivo. Bioeng. Transl. Med., 7.10.1002/btm2.10239 ↗
17. Almasi, D., Iqbal, N., Sadeghi, M., Sudin, I., Abdul Kadir, M.R., and Kamarul, T. (2016). Preparation Methods for Improving PEEK’s Bioactivity for Orthopedic and Dental Application: A Review. Int. J. Biomater., 2016.10.1155/2016/8202653 ↗
18. Assessment of a polyelectrolyte multilayer film coating loaded with BMP-2 on titanium and PEEK implants in the rabbit femoral condyle10.1016/j.actbio.2016.03.010 ↗
19. Porous PEEK improves the bone-implant interface compared to plasma-sprayed titanium coating on PEEK10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.09.009 ↗
20. Tsuchiya, A., Toita, R., Tsuru, K., and Ishikawa, K. (2020). Enhanced Osseointegration Capability of Poly(ether ether ketone) via Combined Phosphate and Calcium Surface-Functionalization. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 21.10.3390/ijms21010198 ↗
21. Chen, J., Cao, G., Li, L., Cai, Q., Dunne, N., and Li, X. (2022). Modification of polyether ether ketone for the repairing of bone defects. Biomed. Mater., 17.10.1088/1748-605X/ac65cd ↗
22. Cordero, D., López-Álvarez, M., Rodríguez-Valencia, C., Serra, J., Chiussi, S., and González, P. (2013). In vitro response of pre-osteoblastic cells to laser microgrooved PEEK. Biomed. Mater., 8.10.1088/1748-6041/8/5/055006 ↗
23. Improved response of osteoprogenitor cells to titanium plasma-sprayed PEEK surfaces10.1016/j.colsurfb.2018.12.037 ↗
24. Bioactive glass–chitosan composite coatings on PEEK: Effects of surface wettability and roughness on the interfacial fracture resistance and in vitro cell response10.1016/j.apsusc.2018.01.183 ↗
25. Microwave assisted coating of bioactive amorphous magnesium phosphate (AMP) on polyetheretherketone (PEEK)10.1016/j.msec.2017.12.025 ↗
26. Uysal, I., Tezcaner, A., and Evis, Z. (2024). Methods to improve antibacterial properties of PEEK: A review. Biomed. Mater., 19.10.1088/1748-605X/ad2a3d ↗
27. Wakelin, E.A., Yeo, G.C., McKenzie, D.R., Bilek, M.M.M., and Weiss, A.S. (2018). Plasma ion implantation enabled bio-functionalization of PEEK improves osteoblastic activity. APL Bioeng., 2.10.1063/1.5010346 ↗
28. PEEK as a Potential Material for Dental Implants and its Biomechanical Properties and Osteoblast Cell Response10.54289/JDOE2100106 ↗
29. Magnetically Cured Macroradical Epoxy as Antimicrobial Coating10.1002/asia.202300237 ↗
30. Bone-like apatite coating on functionalized poly(etheretherketone) surface via tailored silanization layers technique10.1016/j.msec.2015.05.070 ↗
31. Macro-Microporous Surface with Sulfonic Acid Groups and Micro-Nano Structures of PEEK/Nano Magnesium Silicate Composite Exhibiting Antibacterial Activity and Inducing Cell Responses10.2147/IJN.S238287 ↗
32. Influence of sulfur content on bone formation and antibacterial ability of sulfonated PEEK10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.01.017 ↗
33. Controllable and durable release of BMP-2-loaded 3D porous sulfonated polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for osteogenic activity enhancement10.1016/j.colsurfb.2018.08.012 ↗
34. Cytocompatibility, osseointegration, and bioactivity of three-dimensional porous and nanostructured network on polyetheretherketone10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.08.071 ↗
35. Osseointegration and biosafety of graphene oxide wrapped porous CF/PEEK composites as implantable materials: The role of surface structure and chemistry10.1016/j.dental.2020.06.004 ↗
36. Sulfonation of poly(ether ether ketone)(PEEK): Kinetic study and characterization10.1002/app.2118 ↗
37. A kinetic study of PEEK sulfonation in concentrated sulfuric acid by ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy10.1016/0032-3861(94)90128-7 ↗
38. PEEK surface modification by fast ambient-temperature sulfonation for bone implant applications10.1098/rsif.2018.0955 ↗
39. Multifunctional sulfonated polyetheretherketone coating with beta-defensin-14 for yielding durable and broad-spectrum antibacterial activity and osseointegration10.1016/j.actbio.2019.01.016 ↗
40. Designing bioactive porous titanium interfaces to balance mechanical properties and in vitro cells behavior towards increased osseointegration10.1016/j.surfcoat.2019.03.001 ↗
41. Do Surface Porosity and Pore Size Influence Mechanical Properties and Cellular Response to PEEK?10.1007/s11999-016-4833-0 ↗
42. Effects of pore size and porosity of surface-modified porous titanium implants on bone tissue ingrowth10.1016/S1003-6326(19)65161-7 ↗
43. The effect of mean pore size on cell attachment, proliferation and migration in collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffolds for bone tissue engineering10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.09.063 ↗
44. Getting PEEK to Stick to Bone: The Development of Porous PEEK for Interbody Fusion Devices10.1097/BTO.0000000000000242 ↗
45. How bone forms in large cancellous defects: Critical analysis based on experimental work and literature10.1016/j.injury.2011.06.007 ↗
46. Role of pore size and morphology in musculo-skeletal tissue regeneration10.1016/j.msec.2015.12.087 ↗
47. Surface modifications to enhance osseointegration-Resulting material properties and biological responses10.1002/jbm.b.34835 ↗
48. Osseointegration: Hierarchical designing encompassing the macrometer, micrometer, and nanometer length scales10.1016/j.dental.2014.10.007 ↗
49. Nobles, K., Janorkar, A.V., Roach, M.D., Walker, L., and Williamson, R.S. (2024). In Vitro Evaluation of Optimized PEEK Surfaces for Enhanced Osseointegration. Coatings, 14.10.3390/coatings14050518 ↗
50. Infection of orthopedic implants with emphasis on bacterial adhesion process and techniques used in studying bacterial-material interactions10.4161/biom.22905 ↗
51. Biofilms as Complex Differentiated Communities10.1146/annurev.micro.56.012302.160705 ↗
52. The VDI 3198 indentation test evaluation of a reliable qualitative control for layered compounds10.1016/S0924-0136(03)00300-5 ↗
53. Endplate Trauma During Implant Insertion Affects the Expulsion Risk of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Devices
54. Tang, S., Pan, D., Chen, S., Li, H., and Ye, Z. (2025). Biomechanical Analysis for Enhanced Expulsion-Proof Intervertebral Fusion Device. J. Biomech. Eng., 147.10.1115/1.4067574 ↗
55. Zacher, A.T., Mirza, K., Thieme, L., Nietzsche, S., Senft, C., and Schwarz, F. (2024). Biofilm formation of Staphylococcus aureus on various implants used for surgical treatment of destructive spondylodiscitis. Sci. Rep., 14.10.1038/s41598-024-70244-6 ↗
56. (1991). Verein Deutscher Ingenieure Normen (Standard No. VDI 3198).
57. Nano-scale modification of titanium implant surfaces to enhance osseointegration10.1016/j.actbio.2019.05.045 ↗
58. Bioinspired micro/nano fabrication on dental implant–bone interface10.1016/j.apsusc.2012.11.032 ↗
59. Wei, J., Igarashi, T., Okumori, N., Igarashi, T., Maetani, T., Liu, B., and Yoshinari, M. (2009). Influence of surface wettability on competitive protein adsorption and initial attachment of osteoblasts. Biomed. Mater., 4.10.1088/1748-6041/4/4/045002 ↗
60. Enhancing antibacterial capability and osseointegration of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants by dual-functional surface modification10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109733 ↗
61. Titanium bone implants with superimposed micro/nano-scale porosity and antibacterial capability10.1016/j.apsusc.2013.02.036 ↗