The Biocompatibility and the Effect of Titanium and PEKK on the Osseointegration of Customized Facial Implants

Overview

Journal Materials (Basel)

Publisher MDPI

Date 2024 Sep 14

PMID 39274824

Authors

Sung-Ok Hong

Ju-Yeon Pyo

Sung-Woon On

Ja-Yeong Seo

Jin-Young Choi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the optimization of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) patient-specific implants for mandibular facial bone defects and compare the biocompatibility and osseointegration of machined titanium (Ma), Sandblasted/Large-grit/Acid-etched (SLA) titanium, and polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) facial implants. We hypothesized that the facial implants made of SLA titanium had superior osseointegration when applied to the gonial angle defect and prevented the senile atrophy of the bone. Histologic findings of the soft-tissue reaction, hard-tissue reaction, and bone-implant contact (BIC (%) of 24 Ma, SLA, and PEKK facial implants at 8 and 12 weeks were investigated. There was no statistical difference in the soft tissue reaction. Bone was formed below the periosteum in all facial implants at 12 weeks and the BIC values were significantly different at both 8 and 12 weeks ( < 0.05). Ma, SLA, and PEKK facial implants are biocompatible with osseointegration properties. SLA can enhance osseointegration and provoke minimal soft tissue reactions, making them the most suitable choice. They provide an excellent environment for bone regeneration and, over the long term, may prevent atrophy caused by an aging mandible. The bone formation between the lateral surface of the facial implant and periosteum may assist in osseointegration and stabilization.

Citing Articles

Aseptic, semi-sealed cranial chamber implants for chronic multi-channel neurochemical and electrophysiological neural recording in nonhuman primates.

Choi J, Amjad U, Murray R, Shrivastav R, Teichert T, Goodell B bioRxiv. 2025; .

PMID: 39990309 PMC: 11844372. DOI: 10.1101/2025.02.10.636943.

References

Alsadon O, Wood D, Patrick D, Pollington S . Fatigue behavior and damage modes of high performance poly-ether-ketone-ketone PEKK bilayered crowns. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020; 110:103957. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103957. View

Lin Y, Umebayashi M, Abdallah M, Dong G, Roskies M, Zhao Y . Combination of polyetherketoneketone scaffold and human mesenchymal stem cells from temporomandibular joint synovial fluid enhances bone regeneration. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):472. PMC: 6345789. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-36778-2. View

Yuan B, Cheng Q, Zhao R, Zhu X, Yang X, Yang X . Comparison of osteointegration property between PEKK and PEEK: Effects of surface structure and chemistry. Biomaterials. 2018; 170:116-126. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.04.014. View

Sun C, Kang J, Yang C, Zheng J, Su Y, Dong E . Additive manufactured polyether-ether-ketone implants for orthopaedic applications: a narrative review. Biomater Transl. 2022; 3(2):116-133. PMC: 9465989. DOI: 10.12336/biomatertransl.2022.02.001. View

Jarvinen S, Suojanen J, Kormi E, Wilkman T, Kiukkonen A, Leikola J . The use of patient specific polyetheretherketone implants for reconstruction of maxillofacial deformities. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019; 47(7):1072-1076. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2019.03.018. View

Wang X, Mabrey J, Agrawal C . An interspecies comparison of bone fracture properties. Biomed Mater Eng. 1998; 8(1):1-9. View

Khashaba M, Shaheen H, Ibrahim W, AlDainy D . Accuracy of patient-specific temporal implants using PEKK. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2021; 49(10):943-949. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2021.05.001. View

Velasco-Ortega E, Ortiz-Garcia I, Jimenez-Guerra A, Monsalve-Guil L, Munoz-Guzon F, Perez R . Comparison between Sandblasted Acid-Etched and Oxidized Titanium Dental Implants: In Vivo Study. Int J Mol Sci. 2019; 20(13). PMC: 6651692. DOI: 10.3390/ijms20133267. View

Velasco-Ortega E, Alfonso-Rodriguez C, Monsalve-Guil L, Espana-Lopez A, Jimenez-Guerra A, Garzon I . Relevant aspects in the surface properties in titanium dental implants for the cellular viability. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016; 64:1-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.03.049. View

10.

Cheng B, Jaffee S, Averick S, Swink I, Horvath S, Zhukauskas R . A comparative study of three biomaterials in an ovine bone defect model. Spine J. 2019; 20(3):457-464. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.10.003. View

11.

Wang L, Xu X, Ni Y, Sun H, Yu R, Wei S . [ study of liposome-modified polyetheretherketone implant on bacteriostasis and osseointegration]. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2021; 53(4):758-763. PMC: 8365075. View

12.

Berger M, Slosar P, Schwartz Z, Cohen D, Goodman S, Anderson P . A Review of Biomimetic Topographies and Their Role in Promoting Bone Formation and Osseointegration: Implications for Clinical Use. Biomimetics (Basel). 2022; 7(2). PMC: 9036271. DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics7020046. View

13.

Hernandez J, Woodrow K . Medical Applications of Porous Biomaterials: Features of Porosity and Tissue-Specific Implications for Biocompatibility. Adv Healthc Mater. 2022; 11(9):e2102087. PMC: 9081257. DOI: 10.1002/adhm.202102087. View

14.

Kratzig T, Mende K, Mohme M, Kniep H, Dreimann M, Stangenberg M . Carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK versus titanium implants: an in vitro comparison of susceptibility artifacts in CT and MR imaging. Neurosurg Rev. 2020; 44(4):2163-2170. PMC: 8338834. DOI: 10.1007/s10143-020-01384-2. View

15.

Kyriakides T, Kim H, Zheng C, Harkins L, Tao W, Deschenes E . Foreign body response to synthetic polymer biomaterials and the role of adaptive immunity. Biomed Mater. 2022; 17(2). PMC: 9159526. DOI: 10.1088/1748-605X/ac5574. View

16.

Trindade R, Albrektsson T, Galli S, Prgomet Z, Tengvall P, Wennerberg A . Osseointegration and foreign body reaction: Titanium implants activate the immune system and suppress bone resorption during the first 4 weeks after implantation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017; 20(1):82-91. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12578. View

17.

Sykaras N, Iacopino A, Marker V, Triplett R, Woody R . Implant materials, designs, and surface topographies: their effect on osseointegration. A literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15(5):675-90. View

18.

Peng T, Shih Y, Hsia S, Wang T, Li P, Lin D . In Vitro Assessment of the Cell Metabolic Activity, Cytotoxicity, Cell Attachment, and Inflammatory Reaction of Human Oral Fibroblasts on Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Implant-Abutment. Polymers (Basel). 2021; 13(17). PMC: 8433877. DOI: 10.3390/polym13172995. View

19.

Dec P, Modrzejewski A, Pawlik A . Existing and Novel Biomaterials for Bone Tissue Engineering. Int J Mol Sci. 2023; 24(1). PMC: 9820083. DOI: 10.3390/ijms24010529. View

20.

Hsieh T, Dhir K, Binder W, Hilger P . Alloplastic Facial Implants. Facial Plast Surg. 2021; 37(6):741-750. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1725088. View