Comparative analysis of surface characteristics and hardness of three dimensional printed PEEK vs PEKK - as implant biomaterial


https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2024.579
Vol. 16 No. 1 (2024)
Submitted: 6 May 2023
Accepted: 5 January 2024
Published: 5 March 2024
PEEK, PEKK, surface characteristics, microhardness, High-performance polymer, Dental implants, restorations, dental prosthodontics, innovation
Abstract Views: 133
PDF: 137
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

  • S. Maiti
    subhabratamaiti.sdc@saveetha.com
    Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Science (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai, India, India. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6150-7874
  • M. Dhakshinya Undergraduate student, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Science (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai, India, India. https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3987-2292
  • D. Nallaswamy Professor, Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Science (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai, India, India.
  • P. Jessy Assistant Professor, Department of Pedodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Science (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai, India , India.

AIM: The aim of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of surface characteristics and hardness of three dimensional printed PEEK AND PEKK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total sample size was 60, in which 30 were PEEK and the other 30 was PEKK. The 10 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness circular disc was designed in CAD software and it was 3D printed for manufacturing. PEEK and PEKK were compared using AFM, wettability and contact angle test, SEM and Vicker’s microhardness test to know their surface characteristics when used as an implant material. SPSS software version 22 was used to evaluate the independent t test values for the average of contact angle, microhardness and surface roughness in order to determine their significance.

RESULTS: The material is hydrophobic in nature both PEEK and PEKK, the materials hydrophilic property can be increased by using various surface treatments. PEKK had more Vicker’s hardness numbers. The material seems to be less porous. The surface roughness characterics of PEEK and PEKK were statistically significant (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION: PEEK AND PEKK are  polymers that have good microhardness and surface roughness. These both materials are highly aesthetic and can be used in aesthetic zones. Both PEEK and PEKK can be used as implant materials but PEKK is better than PEEK as implant biomaterial.




Maiti, S., Dhakshinya, M., Nallaswamy, D., & Jessy, P. (2024). Comparative analysis of surface characteristics and hardness of three dimensional printed PEEK vs PEKK - as implant biomaterial . Journal of Osseointegration, 16(1), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2024.579

Copyright (c) 2024 Ariesdue

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

The Journal of Osseointegration has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC