The Journal
Conclusion
Because of its mechanical and physical
properties being similar to bone and dentin,
PEEK can be used for a number of applications
in dentistry including dental implants.
Increasing the bioactivity of PEEK dental
implants without affecting their mechanical
properties is a major challenge. PEEK is also an
attractive material for producing CAD-CAM
fixed and removable prosthesis owing to its
superior mechanical properties compared to
materials such as acrylic. Further research and
clinical trials are required to explore this
material and possible modifications for further
dental applications.
References
1.Toth JM, Wang M, Estes BT, Scifert JL, Seim
HB, Turner AS.Polyetheretherketone as a
biomaterial for spinalapplications. Biomaterials
2006;27:324–34.
2. Kurtz SM, Devine JN. PEEK biomaterials in
trauma,orthopedic, and spinal implants.
Biomaterials2007;28:4845–69.
3.Pokorny D, Fulin P, Slouf M, Jahoda D,
Landor I, Sosna A.Polyetheretherketone
(PEEK). Part II: Application in clinical practice.
A c t a C h i r O r t h o p Tr a u m a t o l C e c h
2010;77:470–8.
4.Staniland P, Wilde C, Bottino F, Di Pasquale
G, Pollicino A, Recca A. Synthesis,
characterization and study of thethermal
properties of new polyarylene ethers.
Polymer1992;33:1976–81.
5. Skinner HB. Composite technology for total
hip arthroplasty. ClinOrthop 1988;235:224–36.
6. Lee W, Koak J, Lim Y, Kim S, Kwon H, Kim M.
Stressshielding and fatigue limits of poly-ether-
ether-ketone dental implants. J Biomed Mater
Res Part B: ApplBiomater2012;100:1044–52.
10
3
1
20
7
7. Staines M, Robinson W, Hood J. Spherical
indentation of tooth enamel. J Mater Sci
1981;16:2551–6.
8. Lin TW, Corvelli AA, Frondoza CG, Roberts
JC, Hungerford DS.Glass peek composite
promotes proliferation and
osteocalcinproduction of human osteoblastic
cells. J Biomed Mater Res.1997;36:137–44.
9. Sasuga TH, Hagiwara M. Radiation
deterioration of severalaromatic polymers
under oxidative conditions.
Polymer.1987;28:1915–21.
10.Li HM, Fouracre RA, Given MJ, Banford HM,
Wysocki S,Karolczak S. Effects on
polyetheretherketone and polyethersulfoneof
electron and gamma irradiation.
DielectrElectrInsul.1999;6:295–303.
11. Sobieraj MC, Kurtz SM, Rimnac CM. Notch
sensitivity of PEEK in monotonic tension.
Biomaterials. 2009;30:6485–94.
12. Scolozzi P, Martinez A, Jaques B. Complex
orbito-fronto-temporalreconstruction using
computer-designed PEEK implant.J Craniofac
Surg. 2007;18:224–8.
13. Ranaud M, Farkasdi S, Pons C, Panayotov
I, Collart-DutilleurP-Y, Taillades H, et al. A new
rat model for translational researchin bone
regeneration. Tissue Eng C. 2015.
doi:10.1089/ten.tec.2015.0187.
14. Jockisch KA, Brown SA, Bauer TW, Merritt
K. Biologicalresponse to chopped-carbon-fiber-
reinforced peek. J BiomedMater Res.
1992;26:133–46.
15. Sagomonyants KB, Jarman-Smith ML,
Devine JN, Aronow MS, Gronowicz GA. The in
vitro response of human osteoblasts
topolyetheretherketone (PEEK) substrates
compared to commerciallypure titanium.
Biomaterials. 2008;29:1563–72.
Vol. 13
12 No. 1
2
3
May-August
Sept-Dec 2017
Jan-April
2016
2016