» Articles » PMID: 34445228

Quantitative Assessment of Point-of-Care 3D-Printed Patient-Specific Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Cranial Implants

Overview
Journal Int J Mol Sci
Publisher MDPI
Date 2021 Aug 27
PMID 34445228
Citations 24
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Recent advancements in medical imaging, virtual surgical planning (VSP), and three-dimensional (3D) printing have potentially changed how today's craniomaxillofacial surgeons use patient information for customized treatments. Over the years, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has emerged as the biomaterial of choice to reconstruct craniofacial defects. With advancements in additive manufacturing (AM) systems, prospects for the point-of-care (POC) 3D printing of PEEK patient-specific implants (PSIs) have emerged. Consequently, investigating the clinical reliability of POC-manufactured PEEK implants has become a necessary endeavor. Therefore, this paper aims to provide a quantitative assessment of POC-manufactured, 3D-printed PEEK PSIs for cranial reconstruction through characterization of the geometrical, morphological, and biomechanical aspects of the in-hospital 3D-printed PEEK cranial implants. The study results revealed that the printed customized cranial implants had high dimensional accuracy and repeatability, displaying clinically acceptable morphologic similarity concerning fit and contours continuity. From a biomechanical standpoint, it was noticed that the tested implants had variable peak load values with discrete fracture patterns and failed at a mean (SD) peak load of 798.38 ± 211.45 N. In conclusion, the results of this preclinical study are in line with cranial implant expectations; however, specific attributes have scope for further improvements.

Citing Articles

Personalized bioceramic grafts for craniomaxillofacial bone regeneration.

de Carvalho A, Rahimnejad M, Oliveira R, Sikder P, Saavedra G, Bhaduri S Int J Oral Sci. 2024; 16(1):62.

PMID: 39482290 PMC: 11528123. DOI: 10.1038/s41368-024-00327-7.


Case report: One-stage craniectomy and cranioplasty digital workflow for three-dimensional printed polyetheretherketone implant for an extensive skull multilobular osteochondosarcoma in a dog.

Hobert M, Sharma N, Benzimra C, Hinden S, Oevermann A, Maintz M Front Vet Sci. 2024; 11:1459272.

PMID: 39268523 PMC: 11392014. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1459272.


Complex Frontal Bone Reconstruction Using Computer-designed Polyetheretherketone Implant: Case Report and Literature Review.

Liu Y, Xie S, Ding J, Zhang Y, Deng L, Yao Y Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024; 12(8):e6007.

PMID: 39148507 PMC: 11326458. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000006007.


Investigating the Feasibility and Performance of Hybrid Overmolded UHMWPE 3D-Printed PEEK Structural Composites for Orthopedic Implant Applications: A Pilot Study.

Smith J, Basgul C, Mohammadlou B, Allen M, Kurtz S Bioengineering (Basel). 2024; 11(6).

PMID: 38927852 PMC: 11201260. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering11060616.


Personalized 3D-printed cranial implants for complex cranioplasty using open-source software.

Kopacin V, Zubcic V, Mumlek I, Muzevic D, Roncevic A, Lazar A Surg Neurol Int. 2024; 15:39.

PMID: 38468644 PMC: 10927182. DOI: 10.25259/SNI_906_2023.


References
1.
Piitulainen J, Mattila R, Moritz N, Vallittu P . Load-bearing capacity and fracture behavior of glass fiber-reinforced composite cranioplasty implants. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2017; 15(4):e356-e361. DOI: 10.5301/jabfm.5000375. View

2.
Eppley B, Kilgo M, Coleman 3rd J . Cranial reconstruction with computer-generated hard-tissue replacement patient-matched implants: indications, surgical technique, and long-term follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002; 109(3):864-71. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-200203000-00005. View

3.
Louvrier A, Marty P, Barrabe A, Euvrard E, Chatelain B, Weber E . How useful is 3D printing in maxillofacial surgery?. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 118(4):206-212. DOI: 10.1016/j.jormas.2017.07.002. View

4.
Asaad M, Taslakian E, Banuelos J, Abu-Ghname A, Bite U, Mardini S . Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With PEEK Versus Titanium Cranioplasty Reconstruction. J Craniofac Surg. 2020; 32(1):193-197. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007192. View

5.
Alkhaibary A, Alharbi A, Alnefaie N, Almubarak A, Aloraidi A, Khairy S . Cranioplasty: A Comprehensive Review of the History, Materials, Surgical Aspects, and Complications. World Neurosurg. 2020; 139:445-452. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.04.211. View