Assessing biocompatibility & mechanical testing of 3D-printed PEEK versus milled PEEK

• DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12314
• Publication Date: 2022-12-15T01:25:42Z
• Authors: Neil Limaye; Lorenzo Veschini; Trevor Coward
• Keywords: Biocompatibility; Molding (decorative)

To compare mechanical properties of 3D-printed and milled poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) materials. define post-production treatments to enhance biocompatibility PEEK.Standardised PEEK samples were produced via milling fused-deposition-modelling 3D-printing. evaluate properties, tensile strength, maximum flexural fracture toughness, micro-hardness measured.3D printed sandblasted with 50 or 125 μm aluminium oxide beads increase biocompatibility.Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluated microstructure samples, estimating surface roughness at scales from 1mm-1μm.Cell adhesion on 3D materials was by culturing primary human endothelial cells osteoblasts (HUVEC, HOBS) evaluating cell growth over 48 h.3D had lower but higher micro-hardness.SEM analysis surfaces showed sandblasting silica particles removed printing defects created roughened for increased HUVEC HOBs uniform distribution. No cytotoxicity observed a 48h period, all demonstrated >95% viability.3D-printing is an emerging technology clear advantages in maxillofacial implant production. Nonetheless, this manufacturing modality may produce devices resistance parameters compared values compatible natural bone. has poor osteoconductivity ability osseointegrate. Sandblasting inexpensive remove irregular create micro-rough supporting attachment potentially enhancing integration implants host tissue.