Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

3D printing of PEEK–cHAp scaffold for medical bone implant

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Bio-Design and Manufacturing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The major drawback associated with PEEK implants is their biologically inert surface, which caused unsatisfactory cellular response and poor adhesion between the implants and surrounding soft tissues against proper bone growth. In this study, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) was incorporated with calcium hydroxyapatite (cHAp) to fabricate a PEEK–cHAp biocomposite, using the fused deposition modeling (FDM) method and a surface treatment strategy to create microporous architectures onto the filaments of PEEK lattice scaffold. Also, nanostructure and morphological tests of the PEEK–cHAp biocomposite were modeled and analyzed on the FDM-printed PEEK–cHAp biocomposite sample to evaluate its mechanical and thermal strengths as well as in vitro cytotoxicity via a scanning electron microscope (SEM). A technique was used innovatively to create and investigate the porous nanostructure of the PEEK with controlled pore size and distribution to promote cell penetration and biological integration of the PEEK–cHAp into the tissue. In vivo tests demonstrated that the surface-treated micropores facilitated the adhesion of newly regenerated soft tissues to form tight implant–tissue interfacial bonding between the cHAp and PEEK. The results of the cell culture depicted that PEEK–cHAp exhibited better cell proliferation attachment spreading and higher alkaline phosphatase activity than PEEK alone. Apatite islands formed on the PEEK–cHAp composite after immersion in simulated body fluid of Dulbecco's modified Eagle medium (DMEM) for 14 days and grew continuously with more or extended periods. The microstructure treatment of the crystallinity of PEEK was comparatively and significantly different from the PEEK–cHAp sample, indicating a better treatment of PEEK–cHAp. The in vitro results obtained from the PEEK–cHAp biocomposite material showed its biodegradability and performance suitability for bone implants. This study has potential applications in the field of biomedical engineering to strengthen the conceptual knowledge of FDM and medical implants fabricated from PEEK–cHAp biocomposite materials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Edwards S, Werkmeister JA (2012) Mechanical evaluation and cell response of woven polyetheretherketone scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res Part A100A:3326–3331

    Google Scholar 

  2. Oladapo BI, Zahedi SA, Chong S, Omigbodun FT, Malachi IO (2020) 3D printing of surface characterisation and finite element analysis improvement of PEEK-HAP-GO in bone implant. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 106:829–841

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ouyang L, Deng Y, Yang L, Shi X, Dong T, Tai Y, Yang W, Chen Z (2018) Graphene-oxide-decorated microporous polyetheretherketone with superior antibacterial capability and in vitro osteogenesis for orthopedic implant. Macromol Biosci 18:1800036

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kurtz SM, Devine JN (2008) PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic and spinal implants. Biomaterials 28:4845–4869

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wilmowsky CV, Vairaktaris E, Pohle D, Rechtenwald T, Lutz R, Munstedt H, Koller G, Schmidt M, Neukam W, Schlegel KA, Nkenke E (2008) Effects of bioactive glass and β-TCP containing three-dimensional laser sintered polyetheretherketone composites on osteoblasts in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 87:896–902

    Google Scholar 

  6. Oladapo BI, Zahedi SA, Vahidnia F, Ikumapayi OM, Farooq MU (2018) Three-dimensional finite element analysis of a porcelain crowned tooth. Beni-Suef Univ J Basic Appl Sci 7:461–464

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wang L, He S, Wu X, Liang S, Mu Z, Wei J, Deng F, Deng Y, Wei S (2014) Polyetheretherketone/nano-fluorohydroxyapatite composite with anticicrobial activity and osseointegration properties. Biomaterials 35:6758–6775

    Google Scholar 

  8. Shamsi-Sarband A, Zahedi SA, Bakhshi-Jouybari M, Hossinipour SJ, Banabic D (2012) Optimizitation of the pressure path in sheet metal hydroforming. J Proc Roman Acad A 13:351–359

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wang S, Lee JM, Yeong WY (2015) Smart hydrogels for 3D bioprinting. Int J Bioprint 1:3–14

    Google Scholar 

  10. Oladapo BI, Oshin EA, Olawumi AM (2020) Nanostructural computation of 4D printing carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) composite. Nano-Struct Nano-Obj 21:100423

    Google Scholar 

  11. Yang HY, Thompson I, Yang SF, Chi XP, Evans JRG, Cook RJ (2008) Dissolution Scaffolds J Mater Sci Med 19:3345–3353

    Google Scholar 

  12. Oladapo BI, Ismail SO, Zahedi M, Khan A, Usman H (2020) 3D printing and morphological characterisation of polymeric composite scaffolds. Eng Struct 216:110752

    Google Scholar 

  13. Yang HY, Yang S, Chi XP, Evans JRG, Thompson I, Cook RJ, Robinson P (2008) Sintering behaviour of calcium phosphate filaments for use as hard tissue scaffolds. J Eur Ceram Soc 28:159–167

    Google Scholar 

  14. Li S., Zahedi SA., Silberschmidt V., (2017), Numerical Simulation of Bone Cutting: Hybrid SPH-FE Approach Numerical Methods and Advanced Simulation in Biomechanics and Biological Processes, 187–201

  15. Yang S, Yang H, Chi X, Evans JRG, Thompson I, Cook RJ, Robinson P (2008) Rapid prototyping of ceramic lattices for hard tissue scaffolds. Mater Des 29:1802–1809

    Google Scholar 

  16. Adeoye AOM, Kayode JF, Oladapo BI, Afolabi SO (2017) Experimental analysis and optimization of synthesized magnetic nanoparticles coated with PMAMPC-MNPs for bioengineering application St. Petersburg Polytech Univ J Phys Math 3:333–338

    Google Scholar 

  17. Zhao Y, Wong HM, Wang W, Li P, Xu Z, Chong EYW, Yan CH, Yeung KWK, Chu PK (2013) Cytocompactibility, osseointegration, and bioactivity of three-dimensional porous and nanostructure network on polyetheretherketone. Biomaterials 34:9264–9277

    Google Scholar 

  18. Zahedi SA, Demiral M, Roy A, Silberschmidt VV (2017) FE/SPH modelling of orthogonal micro-machining of fcc single crystal. Comput Mater Sci 78:104–109

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ziemian C, Sharma M, Ziemian S (2012) Anisotropic mechanical properties of ABS parts fabricated by fused deposition modelling. In:. Gokcek M (ed) Mechanical engineering. Chapter 7:159–180

  20. Balogun VA, Oladapo BI (2016) Electrical energy demand modeling of 3D printing technology for sustainable manufacture. Int J Eng 29:954–961

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ma R, Tang T (2014) Current strategies to improve the bioactivity of PEEK. Int J Mol Sci 15:5426–5445

    Google Scholar 

  22. Li X, He J, Bian W, Li Z, Zhang W, Li D, Snedeker JG (2014) A novel silk-based artificial ligament and tricalcium phosphate/polyether ether ketone anchor for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction—Safety and efficacy in a porcine model. Acta Biomater 10:3696–3704

    Google Scholar 

  23. Oladapo BI, Victor AA, Elemure IE (2019) Microstructural 4D printing investigation of ultra-sonication biocomposite polymer. J King Saud Univ Eng Sci 1–7

  24. Ma R, Tang S, Tan H, Qian J, Lin W, Wang Y, Liu C, Wei J, Tang T (2014) Preparation, characterization, in vitro bioactivity, and cellular responses to a polyetheretherketone bioactive composite containing nanocalcium silicate for bone repair. ACS Appl Mater Interf 6:12214–12225

    Google Scholar 

  25. Omigbodun FT, Oladapo BI, Bowoto OK, Adeyekun FP (2019) Modelling detection of magnetic hysteresis properties with a microcontroller. Int J Eng Trends Technol 67:5–12

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wang L, He S, Wu X, Liang S, Mu Z, Wei J, Deng F, Deng Y, Wei S (2014) Polyetheretherketone/nano-fluorohydroxyapatite composite with antimicrobial activity and osseointegration properties. Biomaterials 35:6758–6775

    Google Scholar 

  27. Zahedi SA, Kodsi C, Berto F (2019) Numerical predictions of U-notched sample failure based on a discrete energy argument. Theor Appl Fract Mech 100:298–306

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lu T, Wen J, Qian S, Cao H, Ning C, Pan X, Jiang X, Liu X, Chu PK (2015) Enhanced osteointegration on tantalum-implanted polyetheretherketone surface with bone-like elastic modulus. Biomaterials 51:173–183

    Google Scholar 

  29. Xu A, Liu X, Gao X, Deng F, Deng Y, Wei S (2015) Enhancement of osteogenesis on micro/nano-topographical carbon fibre-reinforced polyetheretherketone–nanohydroxyapatite biocomposite. Mater Sci Eng C 48:592–598

    Google Scholar 

  30. Oladapo BI, Malachi IO, Malachi OB, Elemure IE, Olawumi AM (2020) Nano-structures of 4D morphology surface analysis of C17Mn0.6P0.1S0.07 (SAE 1045) wear. Nano-Struct Nano-Obj 22:100433

  31. Eltorai AE, Nguyen E, Daniels AH (2015) Three-dimensional printing in orthopedic surgery. Orthopedics 38:684–687

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wang H, Xu M, Zhang W, Kwok DTK, Jiang J, Wu Z (2010) Mechanical and biological characteristics of diamond-like carbon coated poly aryl-ether-ether-ketone. Biomaterials 31:8181–8187

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gibbs DM, Vaezi M, Yang S, Oreffo RO (2014) Hope versus hype: What can additive manufacturing realistically offer trauma and orthopaedic surgery? Regen Med 9:535–549

    Google Scholar 

  34. Oladapo BI, Daniyan IA, Ikumapayi OM, Malachi OB, Malachi IO (2020) Microanalysis of hybrid characterization of PLA/cHA polymer scaffolds for bone regeneration. Polym Test 83:106341

    Google Scholar 

  35. Martelli N, Serrano C, van den Brink H, Pineau J, Prognon P, Borget I, El Batti S (2016) Advantages and disadvantages of 3-dimensioanl printing in surgery: a systematic review. Surgery 159:1485–1500

    Google Scholar 

  36. Zahedi A, Demiral M, Roy A, Babitsky VI, Silberschmidt VV (2012) Indentation in fcc single crystals. Solid State Phenom 188:219–225

    Google Scholar 

  37. Provigil E, Leong JJH, Kalaskar DM (2017) Application of 3D printing in the mangament of severe spinal conditions. Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med 231:471–486

    Google Scholar 

  38. Oladapo BI, Adeoye AOM, Ismail M (2018) Analytical optimization of a nanoparticle of microstructural fused deposition of resins for additive manuf. Compos B Eng 150:248–254

    Google Scholar 

  39. Oladapo BI, Obisesan OB, Bowoto O, Victor AA, Hazrat U, Affan K (2020) Mechanical characterization of a polymeric scaffold for bone implant. J Mater Sci 55:9057–9069

    Google Scholar 

  40. Oladapo BI, Zahedi SA, Chaluvadi SC, Bollapalli SS, Ismail M (2018) Model design of a superconducting quantum interference device of magnetic field sensors for magnetocardiography. Biomed Sig Proc Cont 46:116–120

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tang SM, Cheang P, Abu Bakar MS, Khor KA, Liao K (2004) Tensiontension fatigue behaviour of hydroxyapatite reinforced polyetheretherketone composites. Int J fatig 26:49–57

    Google Scholar 

  42. Oladapo BI, Zahedi SA, Omigbodun FT, Oshin EA, Adebiyi VA, Malachi OB (2019) Microstructural evaluation of aluminum alloy A365 T6 in machining operation. J Mater Res Technol 8:3213–3222

    Google Scholar 

  43. Tafaoli-Masoule M, Shakeri M, Zahedi SA, Seitz H, Vaezi M (2019) 3D printing of PEEK-based medical devices. Trans Addit Manuf Meets Med. https://doi.org/10.18416/AMMM.2019.1909S10T05

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Abu Bakar MS, Cheng MHW, Tang SM, Yu SC, Liao K, Tan CT, Khor KA, Cheang P (2003) Tensile properties, tension–tension fatigue and biological response of polyetheretherketone–hydroxyapatite composites for load-bearing orthopedic implants. Biomaterials 24:2245–2250

    Google Scholar 

  45. Tlegenov Y, Wong YS, Hong G-S (2017) A dynamic modelfor nozzle clog monitoring in fused deposition modelling. Rapid Protot J 23:391–400

    Google Scholar 

  46. Vaezi M, Yang S (2015) Extrusion-based additive manufacturing of PEEK for biomedical applications. J Virt Phys Protot 10:123–135

    Google Scholar 

  47. Oladapo BI, Zahedi SA, Adeoye AOM (2019) 3D printing of bone scaffolds with hybrid biomaterials. Compos B Eng 158:428–436

    Google Scholar 

  48. Geng P, Zhao J, Wu W, Ye W, Wang Y, Wang S, Zhang S (2019) Effects of extrusion speed and printing speed on the 3D printing stability of extruded PEEK filament. J Manuf Proc 37:266–273

    Google Scholar 

  49. Deng Y, Yang L, Huang X, Chen J, Shi X, Yang W, Hong M, Wang Y, Dargusch MS, Chen Z-G (2018) Dual ag/zno-decorated micro-/nanoporous sulfonated polyetheretherketone with superior antibacterial capability and biocompatibility via layer-by-layer self-assembly strategy. Macromol Biosci 18:1800028

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ding S, Zou B, Wang P, Ding H (2019) Effects of nozzle temperature and building orientation on mechanical properties and microstructure of PEEK and PEI printed by 3D-FDM. Polym Test 78:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  51. 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. Procedia Eng 159:124–132

    Google Scholar 

  52. Wang P, Zou B, Xiao H, Ding S, Huang C (2019) Effects of printing parameters of fused deposition modelling on mechanical properties, surface quality, and microstructure of PEEK. J Mater Proc Technol 271:62–74

    Google Scholar 

  53. Zhong G, Vaezi M, Liu P, Pand L, Yang S (2017) Characterisation approach on the extrusion process of bioceramics for the 3D printing of bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Ceram Int 43:13860–13868

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ma R, Guo D (2019) Evaluating the bioactivity of a hydroxyapatite-incorporated polyetheretherketone biocomposite. J Orthop Surg Res 14:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  55. Deng L, Deng Y, Xie K (2017) AgNPs-decorated 3D printed PEEK implant for infection control and bone repair. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 160:483–492

    Google Scholar 

  56. Wang L, Weng L, Song S, Sun Q (2010) Mechanical properties and microstructure of polyetheretherketone–hydroxyapatite nanocomposite materials. Mater Lett 64:2201–2204

    Google Scholar 

  57. Fan JF, Tsui CP, Tang CY, Chow CL (2004) Influence of interphase layer on the overall elasto-plastic behaviors of HA/PEEK biocomposite. Biomaterials 25:5363–5373

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the funding/financial support received from the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) of De Montfort University, Leicester, UK, under Research Project No. 0043.06.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering and Sustainable Development, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK

    Bankole I. Oladapo, S. Abolfazl Zahedi & Oluwole K. Bowoto

  2. Centre for Engineering Research, School of Physics, Engineering and Computer Science, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK

    Sikiru O. Ismail

  3. Mechanical Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK

    Francis T. Omigbodun

  4. Faculty of Engineering, Computing and media, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK

    Bankole I. Oladapo & Mattew A. Olawumi

  5. Faculty of Engineering, Environment and Computing, Coventry University, Coventry, UK

    Musa A. Muhammad

Authors
  1. Bankole I. Oladapo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Abolfazl Zahedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sikiru O. Ismail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francis T. Omigbodun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Oluwole K. Bowoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mattew A. Olawumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Musa A. Muhammad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

BIO took part in conceptualization, methodology, software, writing the original draft. SAZ carried out supervision, formal analysis and funding acquisition. SOI was involved in writing, reviewing, editing and supervision. FTO conducted review, editing, validation and visualization. OKB performed review, editing, funding acquisition and investigation. MAO contributed to data curation, validation and software. MAM took part in review, editing, project administration and software.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bankole I. Oladapo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The authors declare that there is no ethical issue; the study was conducted in full agreement with ethical standards. Also, the manuscript is neither under review nor published elsewhere.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oladapo, B.I., Zahedi, S.A., Ismail, S.O. et al. 3D printing of PEEK–cHAp scaffold for medical bone implant. Bio-des. Manuf. 4, 44–59 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42242-020-00098-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42242-020-00098-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation