Hydroxyapatite-incorporation improves bone formation on endosseous PEEK implant in canine tibia
Source abstract
Abstract
Background: Poly Ether Ether Ketone (PEEK) has been considered as a potential alternative material for endosseous dental implants, for its low elastic modulus, biocompatibility, and low cost in customized device manufacture. Hydroxyapatite-incorporation is supposed to improve the poor osseointegration of PEEK. Methods: In the present study we analyzed the in vivo response of hydroxyapatite-incorporated PEEK (PEEK-HA) implants in canine tibia. PEEK-HA and PEEK implants were implanted and were examined 4 weeks and 12 weeks after implantation with radiology and histology. Commercial titanium dental implants served as controls. Results: The ratio of bone volume to tissue volume of PEEK-HA implants was higher than that of PEEK implants 4 weeks after implantation in the μ-CT analysis. The bone implant contact of PEEK and PEEK-HA implants showed no statistical difference in the histological examination, but newly-formed bone around PEEK-HA implants showed more signs of mineralization than that around PEEK implants. Conclusion: The study suggested that bone formation was improved with hydroxyapatite-incorporation in PEEK. Hydroxyapatite-incorporated PEEK implants may represent a potential material for endosseous dental implant.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · biodegradable polymer synthesis and properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Stomatology, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
Medprin Regenerative Medical Technologies Co., Ltd., Guangzhou, China
School of Materials Science and Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery/Pathology, Amsterdam UMC and Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
References (28)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1111/prd.1217910.1111/prd.12179 ↗
2. 10.3390/ma1206098010.3390/ma12060980 ↗
3. 10.1111/clr.1330510.1111/clr.13305 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.jpor.2015.10.00110.1016/j.jpor.2015.10.001 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.msec.2019.02.08210.1016/j.msec.2019.02.082 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.joms.2018.05.00210.1016/j.joms.2018.05.002 ↗
7. 10.1186/s13018-018-0905-z10.1186/s13018-018-0905-z ↗
8. 10.1177/036354651986153010.1177/0363546519861530 ↗
9. 10.3390/jfb1003002910.3390/jfb10030029 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2016.10.00110.1016/j.clinbiomech.2016.10.001 ↗
11. 10.1111/cid.1270610.1111/cid.12706 ↗
12. 10.3390/jcm806081410.3390/jcm8060814 ↗
13. 10.1097/BRS.000000000000077810.1097/BRS.0000000000000778 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.08.04210.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.08.042 ↗
15. 10.3390/dj504003510.3390/dj5040035 ↗
16. 10.3390/ma807381510.3390/ma8073815 ↗
17. 10.1177/204173141881557010.1177/2041731418815570 ↗
18. 10.1007/s11999-016-4994-x10.1007/s11999-016-4994-x ↗
19. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2015.09.00110.1016/j.colsurfb.2015.09.001 ↗
20. 10.1039/C7NR05013E10.1039/C7NR05013E ↗
21. 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.10.02610.1016/j.actbio.2012.10.026 ↗
22. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01775.x10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01775.x ↗
23. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.09.00910.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.09.009 ↗
24. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02065.x10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02065.x ↗
25. 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2015.12.04510.1016/j.surfcoat.2015.12.045 ↗
26. 10.1016/S8756-3282(98)00068-410.1016/S8756-3282(98)00068-4 ↗
27. 10.1111/j.1365-2818.2005.01469.x10.1111/j.1365-2818.2005.01469.x ↗
28. Albrektsson T · Eur Spine J · 2001 · 10