3D printing of surface characterisation and finite element analysis improvement of PEEK-HAP-GO in bone implant

  • Bankole I. OladapoEmail author
  • S. Abolfazl Zahedi
  • Seng Chong
  • Francis T. Omigbodun
  • Idowu O. Malachi


Research and development of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) composites with high thermal conductivities and ideal thermal stabilities have become one of the hot topics in composites. However, not all PEEK composites have the necessary characteristics adequate fracture toughness to resist forces and crack propagation, with an improved mechanical and structural properties. This research evaluates a novel computational surface characterisation and finite element analysis (FEA) of polyetheretherketone and hydroxyapatite graphene oxide (PEEK-HAP-GO) in the process of 3D printing to improve fracture toughness to resist forces and crack propagation. It also focuses on increasing the hydrophilicity, surface roughness, and coating osteoconductive of PEEK-HAP-GO for the bone implant. Compression and tensile tests were performed to investigate the mechanical properties of the PEEK-HAP-GO structure. The addition of calcium phosphate and the incorporation of porosity in PEEK-HAP-GO has been identified as an effective way to improve the osseointegration of bone-implant interfaces of PEEK-HAP-GO. The further analytical structure of the particle was performed, evaluating the surface luminance structure and the profile structure of composite material in 3D printing, analysing the profile curve of the nanostructure from the scanning electron microscope (SEM). The results of the uniaxial compression tests in new PEEK-HAP-GO biodegradable materials show good compressive strength suitable for loading applications. It shows melt-blending with bioactive nanoparticles can be used to produce bioactive nanocomposites like HAP-GO and is used to modify the surface structure of PEEK implants in order to make it more bioactive.

Graphical abstract



Additive manufacture Finite element analysis Surface characterisation PEEK-HAP-GO Biomedical applications 


Funding information

This project is funded by the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) of De Montfort University 2018–2019, UK: Research Project No.0043.06


  1. 1.
    Ma R, Tang S, Tan H, Lin W, Wang Y, Wei J, Zhao L, Tang T (2014) Preparation, characterization, and in vitro osteoblast functions of a nano-hydroxyapatite/polyetheretherketone biocomposite as orthopedic implant material. Int J Nanomedicine 9:3949–3961Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deng Y, Liu X, Xu A, Wang L, Luo Z, Zheng Y, Deng F, Wei J, Tang Z, Wei S (2015) Effect of surface roughness on osteogenesis in vitro and osseointegration in vivo of carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone-nanohydroxyapatite composite. Int J Nanomedicine 10:1425–1447Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Converse GL, Conrad TL, Roeder RK (2009) Mechanical properties of hydroxyapatite whisker reinforced polyetherketoneketone composite scaffolds. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2:627–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oladapo BI, Zahedi SA, Vahidnia F, Ikumapayi OM, Farooq MU Three-dimensional finite element analysis of a porcelain crowned tooth. Beni-Suef Univ J Basic Appl Sci 7(4):461–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abu Bakar MS, Cheang P, Khor KA (2003a) Mech. propt. of injection molded HA-PEEK biocompos. Compos Sci Technol 63:421–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peng S, Feng P, Wu P, Huang W, Yang Y, Wang G, Gao C, Shuai C (2017) Graphene oxide as an interface phase between polyetheretherketone and hydroxyapatite for tissue engineering scaffolds. Sci Rep 7, Article number: 46604Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abu Bakar, M.S.; Cheang, P.; Khor, K.A. Tensile properties and microstructural analysis of spheroidizedhydroxyapatite–poly (etheretherketone) biocomposites.Mater. Sci. Eng. A2003,345, 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Daniyan IA, Adeodu AO, Oladapo BI, Daniyan OL, Ajetomobi OR Development of a reconfigurable fixture for low weight machining operations. Cogent Eng 6(1):1579455Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Converse GL, Yue W, Roeder RK (2007) Processing and tensile propt. of HA-whisker-reinforced PEEK. Biomaterials 28:927–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Li, SA. Zahedi, V. Silberschmidt, “Numerical Simulation of Bone Cutting: Hybrid SPH-FE Approach, Numerical Methods and Advanced Simulation in Biomechanics and Biological Processes (2017), 187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oladapo BI, Vincent BA, Oke AO, Agbor EA Design and finite element analysis on car seat height screw adjuster using autodesk inventor. Int J Sci Res Eng Stud (IJSRES) 2(8)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liravi F, Toyserkani E (2017) A hybrid additive manufacturing method for the fabrication of silicone bio-structures: 3D printing optimization and surface characterization. Mater Des 138:46–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jaekel DJ, Macdonald DW, Kurtz SM (2011) Characterization of PEEK Bioms using the small punch test. JMBBM 4:1275–1282Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jarman-Smith M et al (2012) Chapter 12 – porosity in PEEK. In: Kurtz SM (ed) PEEK Bioms handbook. WAP, Oxford, pp 181–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kurtz SM, Devine JN (2007) PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials 28:4845–4869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lovald S, Kurtz SM (2012) Chapter 15 – applications of PEEK in trauma, arthroscopy, and cranial defect repair. In: Kurtz SM (ed) PEEK Biomaterials handbook. WAP, Oxford, pp 243–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rae PJ, Brown EN, Orler EB (2007) The Mech. propt. of PEEK with emphasis on the large compr strain response. Polymer 48:598–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmidt M, Pohle D, Rechtenwald T (2007) SLS of PEEK. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 56:205–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ijagbemi CO, Oladapo BI, Campbell HM, Ijagbemi CO (2016) Design and simulation of fatigue analysis for a vehicle suspension system (VSS) and its effect on global warming. Process Eng 159(2016):124–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kurtz SM (2012) Chapter 2-syntis and proc PEEK for surgical implant. In: PEEK biomaterials handbook. WAP, Oxford, p 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Green SM, Schlegel J (2001) A PEEK Biom for use in medical implant. Applications RTLSB, U.K., pp 1–7Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ladapo BI (2015) Computer aided drafting and construction of standard drafting table for college of engineering studio in afe babalola university. Int J Sci Eng Res 6(8)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Melkerson M, Kirkpatrick J, Griffith S (2003) Spinal implant: are we evaluating them appropriately? ASTMGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen RK, Lo TT, Chen L, Shih AJ (2015) Nano-CT charact. of struct. voids and air bubbles in FDM for AM. In: ASME, vol 1. IMSEC Processing, 2015Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Afolabi SO, Oladapo BI, Ijagbemi CO, Adeoye AOM, Kayode JF (2018) Design and finite element analysis of a fatigue lifeprediction for safe and economical machine shaft. J Mater Res Technol. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Singha S, Singh R (2016) Development of functionally graded material by fused deposition modelling assisted investment casting. J Manuf Process 24:38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Balogun VA, Oladapo BI Electrical energy demand modeling of 3D printing technology for sustainable manufacture. Int J Eng 29(7):1–8Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sung-Hoon A, Michael M, Dan O, Shad R, Paul KW (2002) Anisotropic material propt. of FDM ABS. Rapid Prototyp J 8:248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sobieraj MC, Rimnac CM (2012) Chapter 5-fracture, fatigue, and notch behavior of PEEK. In: Kurtz SM (ed) PEEK Biomaterials Handbook. WAP, Oxford, p 61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jaekel D, Medel FJ, Kurtz SM (2019) Validation of Crystallinity Measurements of Medical Grade PEEK Using Specular Reflectance FTIR-microscopy. ANTEC 5:2511–2516Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Oladapo BI, Adeoye AOM, Ismail M Analytical optimization of a nanoparticle of microstructural fused deposition of resins for additive manufacturing. Compos B Eng 150:248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pan Y, Shen Q, Chen Y (2013) Fabric and charact of functional gradient HA reinforced PEEK biocompos. Micro Nano Lett 8:357–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roeder RK, Conrad TL (2012) Chapter 11—Bioa. PEEK Compos. In: PEEK biomaterials handbook. WAP, Oxford, pp 163–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jarman-Smith M, Brady M, Kurtz SM, Cordaro NM, Walsh WR (2012) Chapter 12—Porosity in PEEK. In: PEEK Bioms Handbook. WAP, Oxford, pp 181–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schmidt M, Pohle D, Rechtenwald T (2007) SLS of PEEK. CIRP Annals – MT 56:205–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Oladapo BI, Zahedi SA, Adeoye AOM 3D printing of bone scaffolds with hybrid biomaterials. Compos B Eng 158:428–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rathke A, Balz U, Muche R, Haller B (2016) Effects of self-curing activator and curing protocol on the bond strength of composite core buildups. J Adhesive Dent 14:39–46Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ijagbemi CO, Oladapo BI, Campbell HM, Ijagbemi CO Design and simulation of fatigue analysis for a vehicle suspension system (VSS) and its effect on global warming. Procedia Eng 159:124–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sithiprumnea D, Luca F, Alessandro P (2016) Fused deposition modelling with ABS–graphene nanocomposites. Compos Part A 85:181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Oladapo BI, Zahedi SA, Omigbodun FT, Oshin EA, Adebiyi VA, Malachi OB (2019) Microstructural evaluation of aluminium alloy A365 T6 in machining operation. J Mater Res Technol 8(3):3213–3222CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Engineering and Sustainable DevelopmentDe Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringEkiti StateUniversityAdo-EkitNigeria

Personalised recommendations