Literature DB >> 18199478

The in vitro response of human osteoblasts to polyetheretherketone (PEEK) substrates compared to commercially pure titanium.

Karen B Sagomonyants1, Marcus L Jarman-Smith, John N Devine, Michael S Aronow, Gloria A Gronowicz.   

Abstract

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is used as an alternative to titanium in medical devices. Previous in vitro studies examining PEEK have differed in their choice of polymer variant [PEEK or carbon-fiber reinforced PEEK (CFR-PEEK)], source of polymer (some of which are no longer available or for implantation) and cell type. While all studies demonstrated favorable cytocompatibility of the PEEK material, no studies are available which reflect the current state of the art of the material. Here, we use different forms of the only implantable grade PEEK available. These are compared with commercially pure titanium (cpTi) Grade 1 using a human primary osteoblast model. Sample materials were presented as industrially relevant surfaces. Machined or injection molded PEEK and CFR-PEEK were evaluated along with polished (Ra=0.200microm) and rough (Ra=0.554microm) cpTi. Osteoblast adhesion at 4h on injection molded variants of PEEK (Ra=0.095microm) and CFR-PEEK (Ra=0.350microm) material was comparable to titanium. Machined variants of PEEK (Ra=0.902microm) and CFR-PEEK (Ra=1.106microm) materials were significantly less. Proliferation at 48h determined by [(3)H]-thymidine incorporation was the greatest on the smoothest of all materials, the injection molded unfilled PEEK, which was significantly higher than the rough titanium control. The machined unfilled PEEK had the lowest DNA synthesis. RT-PCR for alkaline phosphatase, Type I collagen and osteocalcin normalized to glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase revealed different patterns of mRNA levels. High mRNA levels for Type I collagen showed that CFR-PEEK stimulated osteoblast differentiation, whilst injection molded unfilled PEEK was less differentiated. Machined unfilled PEEK had comparable message levels of bone matrix proteins as rough titanium. All material variants permitted a degree of mineralization. Scanning electron microscopy at 3 days and 2 weeks in differentiation medium showed that human osteoblasts were well spread on all the different substrates. The varied response reported here at different time points during the study suggests that material formulation (unfilled PEEK or CFR-PEEK), subjection to industrial processing, surface roughness and topography may all influence the cellular response of osteoblasts to PEEK. Thus, differences in human osteoblast responses were found to the various samples of PEEK, but implantable grade PEEK, in general, was comparable in vitro to the bone forming capacity of rough titanium.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18199478     DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.12.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biomaterials        ISSN: 0142-9612            Impact factor:   12.479


  31 in total

Review 1.  Radiological and clinical outcomes of novel Ti/PEEK combined spinal fusion cages: a systematic review and preclinical evaluation.

Authors:  Yusuf Assem; Ralph J Mobbs; Matthew H Pelletier; Kevin Phan; William R Walsh
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Wear studies on the likely performance of CFR-PEEK/CoCrMo for use as artificial joint bearing materials.

Authors:  S C Scholes; A Unsworth
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2008-08-14       Impact factor: 3.896

3.  Assessment of epidural versus intradiscal biocompatibility of PEEK implant debris: an in vivo rabbit model.

Authors:  Nadim J Hallab; Qi-Bin Bao; Tim Brown
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-08-31       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Biomaterials for Bone Regenerative Engineering.

Authors:  Xiaohua Yu; Xiaoyan Tang; Shalini V Gohil; Cato T Laurencin
Journal:  Adv Healthc Mater       Date:  2015-04-07       Impact factor: 9.933

5.  Individualized recording chambers for non-human primate neurophysiology.

Authors:  R M McAndrew; J L Lingo VanGilder; S N Naufel; S I Helms Tillery
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 2.390

Review 6.  Implant osseointegration and the role of microroughness and nanostructures: lessons for spine implants.

Authors:  Rolando A Gittens; Rene Olivares-Navarrete; Zvi Schwartz; Barbara D Boyan
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 8.947

Review 7.  Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for medical applications.

Authors:  Ivan Vladislavov Panayotov; Valérie Orti; Frédéric Cuisinier; Jacques Yachouh
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 3.896

Review 8.  Allergic Reactions to Dental Materials-A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Meena Syed; Radhika Chopra; Vinod Sachdev
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2015-10-01

9.  Assessment of a polyelectrolyte multilayer film coating loaded with BMP-2 on titanium and PEEK implants in the rabbit femoral condyle.

Authors:  R Guillot; I Pignot-Paintrand; J Lavaud; A Decambron; E Bourgeois; V Josserand; D Logeart-Avramoglou; E Viguier; C Picart
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 8.947

10.  Preparation and biocompatibility of Fe50Ni50p/HAP/PEEK biocomposites with weak magnetic properties.

Authors:  Dengyu Liu; Zhenghou Zhu; Jia Zhou; Hui Zhao; Jie Chen; Ruru Bai; Qianying Lin; Manikandan Alagarsamy
Journal:  RSC Adv       Date:  2019-03-29       Impact factor: 4.036

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.