Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Review of PEEK implants and biomechanical and immunological responses to a zirconium phosphate nano-coated PEEK, a blasted PEEK, and a turned titanium implant surface.
Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Malmö University, Faculty of Odontology (OD).ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7488-3588
Promimic AB, AstraZeneca BioVentureHub, Mõlndal, Sweden.
Show others and affiliations
2022 (English)In: American Journal of Dentistry, ISSN 0894-8275, Vol. 35, no 2, p. 152-160Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

PURPOSE: To investigate the biomechanical and immunological reactions to coated and non-coated blasted PEEK implants in vivo after 12 weeks and review the associated literature.

METHODS: Two osteotomy sites were performed in each proximal tibia of 10 lop-eared rabbits (n= 4 per rabbit). Each rabbit received a randomly placed (1) blasted zirconium phosphate nano-coated PEEK- (nano-ZrP), (2) blasted PEEK- (PEEK) and (3) titanium implant (Ti) and an empty sham site. At 12 weeks, removal torque of all implants and biological investigation with qPCR was performed. The implant surfaces were analyzed prior to insertion with interferometry, SEM and XPS.

RESULTS: The interferometry analysis showed that there was no difference in roughness for the uncoated PEEK compared to the ZrP coated PEEK implants. The titanium implants were considerably smoother (Sa= 0.23 µm) than the uncoated Sa= 1.11 µm) and ZrP coated PEEK implants (Sa= 1.12 µm). SEM analysis on the PEEK implants corroborated the interferometry results; no difference in structure between the uncoated vs. the ZrP coated PEEK was visible on the micrometer level. At higher magnifications, the ZrP coating was visible in the SEM as a thin, porous network. All tested implants displayed osseointegration with the highest RTQ for nano-ZrP (18.4 Ncm) followed by PEEK (14.5 Ncm) and Ti (11.5 Ncm). All implants activated the immune system, with elevated macrophage and M2 macrophage qPCR markers at 12 weeks compared to the sham site.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Nano-ZrP coating improves osseointegration of blasted PEEK implants at 12 weeks of follow-up. Osseointegration of titanium, PEEK and nano-ZrP PEEK is not a normal bone healing process, but rather a shield-off mechanism that appears to be regulated by the innate immune system.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Mosher & Linder, Inc. , 2022. Vol. 35, no 2, p. 152-160
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-56285ISI: 000893228600008PubMedID: 35798711OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-56285DiVA, id: diva2:1714399
Available from: 2022-11-29 Created: 2022-11-29 Last updated: 2023-09-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

PubMed

Authority records

Galli, SilviaAlbrektsson, TomasWennerberg, Ann

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Galli, SilviaAlbrektsson, TomasWennerberg, Ann
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
In the same journal
American Journal of Dentistry
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 36 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf