10.1007/s40204-022-00214-6

Mechanical performance and bioactivation of 3D-printed PEEK for high-performance implant manufacture: a review

  • Pedro Rendas*1,
  • Lígia Figueiredo2,
  • Carla Machado1,
  • António Mourão1,
  • Catarina Vidal3,
  • Bruno Soares3,
  1. UNIDEMI, Department Of Mechanical And Industrial Engineering, Nova School Of Science And Technology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Caparica, 2829-516, PT
  2. Bioceramed–Cerâmicos para Aplicações Médicas S.A., São Julião Do Tojal, 2660-360, PT
  3. UNIDEMI, Department Of Mechanical And Industrial Engineering, Nova School Of Science And Technology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Caparica, 2829-516, PT Laboratório Associado de Sistemas Inteligentes, LASI, 4800-058, Guimarães, PT

Published 2022-12-10

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite

Rendas, P., Figueiredo, L., Machado, C., Mourão, A., Vidal, C., & Soares, B. (2022). Mechanical performance and bioactivation of 3D-printed PEEK for high-performance implant manufacture: a review. Progress in Biomaterials, 12(2 (June 2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40204-022-00214-6
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Abstract Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has stood out as the leading high-performance thermoplastic for the replacement of metals in orthopaedic, trauma and spinal implant applications due to its high biocompatibility and mechanical properties. Despite its potential for custom-made medical devices, 3D-printed PEEK's mechanical performance depends on processing parameters and its bioinertness may hinder bone opposition to the implant. Concerning these challenges, this review focuses on the available literature addressing the improvement of the mechanical performance of PEEK processed through “fused filament fabrication” (FFF) along with literature on bioactivation of PEEK for improved osseointegration. The reviewed research suggests that improvements can be achieved in mechanical performance of 3D-printed PEEK with adequate FFF parametrization while different bioactivation techniques can be used to improve the bioperformance of 3D-printed PEEK. The adequate approaches towards these procedures can increase PEEK's potential for the manufacture of high-performance custom-made implantable devices that display improved bone–implant integration and prevent stress shielding of the treated bone. Graphical abstract

Keywords

  • PEEK,
  • Implant manufacture,
  • Additive manufacturing,
  • 3D printing,
  • Biomaterial,
  • Bone

References

  1. (2022a) Scopus.
  2. https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri
  3. . Accessed 17 Jan 2022
  4. (2022b) ScienceDirect.
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
  6. . Accessed 19 Jan 2022b
  7. (2022c) Web of Science.
  8. https://apps.webofknowledge.com/
  9. . Accessed 17 Jan 2022
  10. (2022d) Clinicaltrials.gov.
  11. https://clinicaltrials.gov/
  12. . Accessed 25 May 2022
  13. Abu Bakar et al. (2003) Tensile properties and microstructural analysis of spheroidized hydroxyapatite-poly (etheretherketone) biocomposites (pp. 55-63) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-5093(02)00289-7
  14. Abu Bakar et al. (2003) Mechanical properties of injection molded hydroxyapatite-polyetheretherketone biocomposites (pp. 421-425) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-3538(02)00230-0
  15. Abu Bakar et al. (2003) Tensile properties, tension-tension fatigue and biological response of polyetheretherketone-hydroxyapatite composites for load-bearing orthopedic implants (pp. 2245-2250) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00028-0
  16. Ahn et al. (2002) Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS (pp. 248-257) https://doi.org/10.1108/13552540210441166
  17. Ajami et al. (2017) Augmenting the bioactivity of polyetheretherketone using a novel accelerated neutral atom beam technique (pp. 1438-1446) https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33681
  18. Ali et al. (2020) Additive manufacturing potential for medical devices and technology (pp. 127-133) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2020.05.001
  19. Arevalo and Pruitt (2020) Nanomechanical analysis of medical grade PEEK and carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK composites https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.104008
  20. Arif et al. (2018) Performance of biocompatible PEEK processed by fused deposition additive manufacturing (pp. 249-259) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2018.03.015
  21. Arif et al. (2020) Multifunctional performance of carbon nanotubes and graphene nanoplatelets reinforced PEEK composites enabled via FFF additive manufacturing https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107625
  22. Avanzini et al. (2018) Influence of micro-notches on the fatigue strength and crack propagation of unfilled and short carbon fiber reinforced PEEK (pp. 447-456) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.11.039
  23. Barba et al. (2020) Temperature and strain rate dependences on hardening and softening behaviours in semi-crystalline polymers: Application to PEEK (pp. 205-217) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2019.08.021
  24. Basgul et al. (2018) Structure-property relationships for 3D-printed PEEK intervertebral lumbar cages produced using fused filament fabrication (pp. 2040-2051) https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2018.178
  25. Basgul et al. (2020) Does annealing improve the interlayer adhesion and structural integrity of FFF 3D printed PEEK lumbar spinal cages? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103455
  26. Basgul et al. (2021) Structure, properties, and bioactivity of 3D printed PAEKs for implant applications: A systematic review (pp. 1924-1941) https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.34845
  27. Basgul et al. (2021) Heat transfer-based non-isothermal healing model for the interfacial bonding strength of fused filament fabricated polyetheretherketone https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.102097
  28. Berer et al. (2014) Investigation of the dynamic mechanical behavior of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in the high stress tensile regime (pp. 663-684) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11043-013-9211-7
  29. Berretta et al. (2018) Additive manufacture of PEEK cranial implants: Manufacturing considerations versus accuracy and mechanical performance (pp. 141-152) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.10.078
  30. Bodden et al. (2017) Impact of the heating/quenching process on the mechanical, optical and thermodynamic properties of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) films (pp. 1436-1444) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.09.016
  31. Bozkurt and Karayel (2021) 3D printing technology; methods, biomedical applications, future opportunities and trends (pp. 1430-1450) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.07.050
  32. Bragaglia et al. (2020) PEEK -TiO2 composites with enhanced UV resistance https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2020.108365
  33. Chen et al. (2018) Enhanced interfacial interactions of carbon fiber reinforced PEEK composites by regulating PEI and graphene oxide complex sizing at the interface (pp. 175-186) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2017.11.005
  34. Chen et al. (2021) Graphene oxide-reinforced poly (ether-ether-ketone)/silica composites with improved mechanical performance and surface bioactivity https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104811
  35. Cheng et al. (2018) Porous titanium-coated polyetheretherketone implants exhibit an improved bone–implant interface: an in vitro and in vivo biochemical, biomechanical, and histological study (pp. 391-402) https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S180482
  36. Cicala et al. (2017) Engineering thermoplastics for additive manufacturing: A critical perspective with experimental evidence to support functional applications (pp. e10-e18) https://doi.org/10.5301/jabfm.5000343
  37. Colmer et al. (2017) Measuring fatigue crack growth and closure in Polyether Ether Ketone (PEEK) (pp. 243-251) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.10.025
  38. Deng et al. (2018) Mechanical properties optimization of poly-ether-ether-ketone via fused deposition modeling https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11020216
  39. Dick et al. (2019) 3D printing of meat (pp. 35-44) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.03.005
  40. Diegel et al. (2011) Getting rid of the wires: Curved layer fused deposition modeling in conductive polymer additive manufacturing (pp. 662-667) https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.467-469.662
  41. Diegel et al. (2011) Curved layer fused deposition modeling in conductive polymer additive manufacturing (pp. 1984-1987) https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.199-200.1984
  42. Dua et al. (2021) Applications of 3d-printed peek via fused filament fabrication: A systematic review (pp. 1-15) https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13224046
  43. Durgun (2015) Sheet metal forming using FDM rapid prototype tool (pp. 412-422) https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-01-2014-0003
  44. Durgun and Ertan (2014) Experimental investigation of FDM process for improvement of mechanical properties and production cost (pp. 228-235) https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-10-2012-0091
  45. Edward Guo and Cowin (2001) Mechanical Properties of Cortical Bone and Cancellous Bone Tissue CRC
  46. Elhattab et al. (2020) Fabrication and evaluation of 3-D printed PEEK scaffolds containing Macropores by design https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2019.127227
  47. El-Qoubaa and Othman (2017) Temperature, Strain Rate and Pressure Sensitivity of the Polyetheretherketone’s Yield Stress https://doi.org/10.1142/S1758825117500995
  48. Emolaga et al. (2022) Surface Design of by Controlling Slicing Parameters (pp. 181-186) https://doi.org/10.18178/ijmerr.11.3.181-186
  49. Es-Said et al. (2000) Effect of layer orientation on mechanical properties of rapid prototyped samples (pp. 107-122) https://doi.org/10.1080/10426910008912976
  50. Figueiredo L, Oliveira NG, Ferreira FC, Pinto LFV, Ribeiro N, Rodrigues A (2018) Orthopedic Implants: Applications of Bioabsorbable Polymers. In: Encyclopedia of Polymer Applications, First Edit. Taylor and Francis
  51. Gao et al. (2020) Tuning the surface immunomodulatory functions of polyetheretherketone for enhanced osseointegration https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119642
  52. Garcia et al. (2018) 3D printing materials and their use in medical education: A review of current technology and trends for the future (pp. 27-40) https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjstel-2017-000234
  53. Gibson et al. (2021) Springer International Publishing https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56127-7
  54. Green S, Schlegel J (2001) A polyaryletherketone biomaterial for use in medical implant applications. Polym Med Ind Proc a Conf held Brussels
  55. Gupta and Salovey (1990) Thermal behavior of transparent poly(etheretherketone)(PEEK) film (pp. 453-458) https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.760300805
  56. Halidi and Abdullah (2012) Moisture effects on the ABS used for Fused Deposition Modeling rapid prototyping machine (pp. 839-843) https://doi.org/10.1109/SHUSER.2012.6268999
  57. Hamdan and Swallowe (1996) The strain-rate and temperature dependence of the mechanical properties of polyetherketone and polyetheretherketone (pp. 1415-1423) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00357847
  58. Han et al. (2019) Carbon Fiber Reinforced PEEK Composites Based on 3D-Printing Technology for Orthopedic and Dental Applications https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8020240
  59. Haryńska et al. (2020) A comprehensive evaluation of flexible FDM/FFF 3D printing filament as a potential material in medical application https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2020.109958
  60. Hassan et al. (2019) Enhancing CF/PEEK composites by CF decoration with polyimide and loosely-packed CNT arrays https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105613
  61. He et al. (2020) 3D-Printed PEEK Extravascular Stent in the Treatment of Nutcracker Syndrome: Imaging Evaluation and Short-Term Clinical Outcome (pp. 1-9) https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00732
  62. Honigmann et al. (2018) Patient-specific surgical implants made of 3D printed PEEK: Material, technology, and scope of surgical application https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4520636
  63. Honigmann et al. (2021) In-Hospital 3D Printed Scaphoid Prosthesis Using Medical-Grade Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Biomaterial (pp. 1-7) https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/1301028
  64. Hoskins et al. (2018) Mechanical performance of PEEK produced by additive manufacturing (pp. 511-519) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.08.008
  65. Hu et al. (2019) Improved design of fused deposition modeling equipment for 3D printing of high-performance PEEK parts https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2019.103139
  66. Jarman-Smith et al. (2012) Porosity in Polyaryletheretherketone Elsevier
  67. Jiang et al. (2022) Optimization of FDM 3D printing parameters for high strength PEEK using the Taguchi method and experimental validation (pp. 1260-1271) https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-07-2021-0166
  68. Kalita et al. (2003) Development of controlled porosity polymer-ceramic composite scaffolds via fused deposition modeling (pp. 611-620) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0928-4931(03)00052-3
  69. Khoury et al. (2017) Enhanced bioactivity and osseointegration of PEEK with accelerated neutral atom beam technology (pp. 531-543) https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33570
  70. Khoury et al. (2019) Surface bioactivation of PEEK by neutral atom beam technology (pp. 132-141) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2019.02.001
  71. Korpela et al. (2012) Biodegradable and bioactive porous scaffold structures prepared using fused deposition modeling (pp. 610-619) https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.32863
  72. Kumar et al. (2021) The role of additive manufacturing for biomedical applications: A critical review (pp. 828-850) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.02.022
  73. Kurtz (2012) An overview of PEEK Biomaterials Elsevier Inc
  74. Kurtz and Devine (2007) PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants (pp. 4845-4869) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.013
  75. Lau et al. (2020) Preparation and characterization for antibacterial activities of 3D printing polyetheretherketone disks coated with various ratios of ampicillin and vancomycin salts (pp. 1-14) https://doi.org/10.3390/app10010097
  76. Lee et al. (2017) Cold-spray coating of hydroxyapatite on a three-dimensional polyetheretherketone implant and its biocompatibility evaluated by in vitro and in vivo minipig model (pp. 647-657) https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33589
  77. Lee et al. (2022) Effect of temperature history during additive manufacturing on crystalline morphology of PEEK https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aime.2022.100085
  78. Li et al. (1999) The effects on polyetheretherketone and polyethersulfone of electron and γ irradiation (pp. 295-303) https://doi.org/10.1109/94.775614
  79. Li et al. (2021) 3D printing high interfacial bonding polyether ether ketone components via pyrolysis reactions https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.109333
  80. Li et al. (2021) Surface porous poly-ether-ether-ketone based on three-dimensional printing for load-bearing orthopedic implant https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104561
  81. Lim et al. (2019) Design and biomechanical verification of additive manufactured composite spinal cage composed of porous titanium cover and PEEK body https://doi.org/10.3390/app9204258
  82. Liu et al. (2019) Surface phosphonation treatment shows dose-dependent enhancement of the bioactivity of polyetheretherketone (pp. 30076-30086) https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ra05229a
  83. Liu et al. (2021) The effects of three cold plasma treatments on the osteogenic activity and antibacterial property of PEEK (pp. 81-93) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2020.10.007
  84. Liu et al. (2021) Ameliorative antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and osteogenic activity of sulfonate-bearing polyetheretherketone toward orthopedic and dental implants https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2021.130774
  85. Luo et al. (2018) Controllable interlayer shear strength and crystallinity of PEEK components by laser-assisted material extrusion (pp. 1632-1641) https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2018.131
  86. Lyu et al. (2021) Enhancing CF/PEEK interfacial adhesion by modified PEEK grafted with carbon nanotubes https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2021.108831
  87. Ma et al. (2014) Preparation, characterization, in vitro bioactivity, and cellular responses to a polyetheretherketone bioactive composite containing nanocalcium silicate for bone repair (pp. 12214-12225) https://doi.org/10.1021/am504409q
  88. Manzoor et al. (2021) 3D printed PEEK/HA composites for bone tissue engineering applications: Effect of material formulation on mechanical performance and bioactive potential https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104601
  89. Mao et al. (2019) Tensile mechanical characteristics of CF/PEEK biocomposites with different surface modifications (pp. 263-268) https://doi.org/10.1049/mnl.2018.5374
  90. Martínez-Gómez et al. (2018) Searching for effective compatibilizing agents for the preparation of poly(ether ether ketone)/graphene nanocomposites with enhanced properties (pp. 180-188) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2018.07.027
  91. Masamoto et al. (2019) In vivo and in vitro bioactivity of a “precursor of apatite” treatment on polyetheretherketone (pp. 48-59) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2019.04.041
  92. Masood et al. (2010) Tensile properties of processed FDM polycarbonate material (pp. 2556-2559) https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.654-656.2556
  93. Mendaza-DeCal et al. (2021) Test of Designing and Manufacturing a Polyether Ether Ketone Endoprosthesis for Canine Extremities by 3D Printing (pp. 1-14) https://doi.org/10.3389/fmech.2021.693436
  94. Miyazaki et al. (2017) Bioactive carbon–PEEK composites prepared by chemical surface treatment (pp. 71-75) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.08.058
  95. Mohamed T, Barhoumi N, Lamnawar K, Maazouz A, Znaidi A (2021) Optimization of fused deposition modeling process parameters using the Taguchi method to improve the tensile properties of 3D-printed polyether ether ketone. Proc Inst Mech Eng [L] J Mater Des Appl 235(11):2565–2573
  96. Monich et al. (2017) Physicochemical and biological assessment of PEEK composites embedding natural amorphous silica fibers for biomedical applications (pp. 354-362) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2017.05.031
  97. Naffakh et al. (2003) Thermal properties, structure and morphology of PEEK/thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer blends (pp. 1876-1886) https://doi.org/10.1002/pi.1276
  98. Oladapo et al. (2020) Mechanical characterization of a polymeric scaffold for bone implant (pp. 9057-9069) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-020-04638-y
  99. Oladapo et al. (2021) 3D printing of PEEK–cHAp scaffold for medical bone implant (pp. 44-59) https://doi.org/10.1007/s42242-020-00098-0
  100. Park et al. (2021) Polymer-based filament feedstock for additive manufacturing https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2021.108876
  101. Park et al. (2021) High-temperature 3D printing of polyetheretherketone products: Perspective on industrial manufacturing applications of super engineering plastics https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.110163
  102. Petrovic et al. (2006) Effect of βTCP filled polyetheretherketone on osteoblast cell proliferation in vitro (pp. 41-46) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11373-005-9032-z
  103. Porrelli et al. (2021) Polyetheretherketone and titanium surface treatments to modify roughness and wettability – Improvement of bioactivity and antibacterial properties (pp. 213-224) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmst.2021.04.023
  104. Pu et al. (2021) Understanding mechanical properties in fused filament fabrication of polyether ether ketone https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101673
  105. Qin et al. (2019) Mechanical properties and cytotoxicity of hierarchical carbon fiber-reinforced poly (ether-ether-ketone) composites used as implant materials (pp. 227-233) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.09.040
  106. Qu et al. (2022) Influence of Thermal Processing Conditions on Mechanical and Material Properties of 3D Printed Thin-Structures Using PEEK Material (pp. 689-699) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12541-022-00650-1
  107. Rae et al. (2007) The mechanical properties of poly(ether-ether-ketone) (PEEK) with emphasis on the large compressive strain response (pp. 598-615) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2006.11.032
  108. Regis et al. (2017) Characterization of thermally annealed PEEK and CFR-PEEK composites: Structure-properties relationships (pp. 121-130) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2016.12.005
  109. Rinaldi et al. (2018) Additive layer manufacturing of poly (ether ether ketone) via FDM (pp. 162-172) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.03.029
  110. Rodriguez et al. (2000) Characterization of the mesostructure of fused-deposition acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene materials (pp. 175-185) https://doi.org/10.1108/13552540010337056
  111. Rodriguez J (1999) Maximizing the strength of fused-deposition ABS plastic parts. 10th Solid Free … 335–342
  112. Rodzeń et al. (2021) The direct 3D printing of functional PEEK/hydroxyapatite composites via a fused filament fabrication approach (pp. 1-18) https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13040545
  113. Sachs et al. (1993) Three-Dimensional Printing: The Physics and Implications of Additive Manufacturing (pp. 257-260) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)62438-X
  114. Seo et al. (2019) Isothermal crystallization of poly(ether ether ketone) with different molecular weights over a wide temperature range https://doi.org/10.1002/pcr2.10055
  115. Serra et al. (2016) Design and fabrication of 3D-printed anatomically shaped lumbar cage for intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration treatment https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/8/3/035001
  116. Sharifi et al. (2018) Enhancement of the Mechanical Properties of Hydroxyapatite/Sulphonated Poly Ether Ether Ketone Treated Layer for Orthopaedic and Dental Implant Application https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9607195
  117. Sikder et al. (2020) Bioactive amorphous magnesium phosphate-polyetheretherketone composite filaments for 3D printing (pp. 865-883) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2020.04.008
  118. Soares et al. (2021) Social life cycle performance of additive manufacturing in the healthcare industry : the orthosis and prosthesis cases industry: the orthosis and prosthesis cases (pp. 327-340) https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2021.1872100
  119. Song et al. (2021) Fused deposition modeling of poly(ether ether ketone) scaffolds (pp. 1-11) https://doi.org/10.1515/htmp-2021-0009
  120. Spece et al. (2020) 3D printed porous PEEK created via fused filament fabrication for osteoconductive orthopaedic surfaces https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103850
  121. Su et al. (2020) Additively-manufactured poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) lattice scaffolds with uniform microporous architectures for enhanced cellular response and soft tissue adhesion https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108671
  122. Talbott et al. (1987) The Effects of Crystallinity on the Mechanical Properties of PEEK Polymer and Graphite Fiber Reinforced PEEK (pp. 1056-1081) https://doi.org/10.1177/002199838702101104
  123. Tang et al. (2004) Tension-tension fatigue behavior of hydroxyapatite reinforced polyetheretherketone composites (pp. 49-57) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-1123(03)00080-X
  124. Tseng et al. (2018) Screw extrusion-based additive manufacturing of PEEK (pp. 209-221) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.11.032
  125. Vaezi and Yang (2015) Extrusion-based additive manufacturing of PEEK for biomedical applications (pp. 123-135) https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2015.1097053
  126. Valentan et al. (2013) Processing poly(ether etherketone) an a 3d printer for thermoplastic modelling (pp. 715-721)
  127. Verma et al. (2021) Developments of PEEK (Polyetheretherketone) as a biomedical material: A focused review https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2021.110295
  128. Vidal et al. (2022) Fabrication of a biodegradable and cytocompatible magnesium / nanohydroxyapatite / fluorapatite composite by upward friction stir processing for biomedical applications https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2022.105137
  129. Vyavahare et al. (2020) Fused deposition modelling: a review (pp. 176-201) https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-04-2019-0106
  130. Wakelin et al. (2018) Plasma ion implantation enabled bio-functionalization of PEEK improves osteoblastic activity https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5010346
  131. Wang et al. (2014) Polyetheretherketone/nano-fluorohydroxyapatite composite with antimicrobial activity and osseointegration properties (pp. 6758-6775) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.04.085
  132. Wang et al. (2019) Effects of printing parameters of fused deposition modeling on mechanical properties, surface quality, and microstructure of PEEK (pp. 62-74) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2019.03.016
  133. Wang et al. (2020) Preparation of short CF/GF reinforced PEEK composite filaments and their comprehensive properties evaluation for FDM-3D printing https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108175
  134. Wang et al. (2021) Nutrient Element Decorated Polyetheretherketone Implants Steer Mitochondrial Dynamics for Boosted Diabetic Osseointegration (pp. 1-19) https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202101778
  135. Wang et al. (2021) Mechanical properties of fused filament fabricated PEEK for biomedical applications depending on additive manufacturing parameters https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.104250
  136. Weinans et al. (1992) Effects of material properties of femoral hip components on bone remodeling (pp. 845-853) https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.1100100614
  137. Williams and Ilardo (2010) Design and manufacture of a Formula SAE intake system using fused deposition modeling and fiber-reinforced composite materials (pp. 174-179) https://doi.org/10.1108/13552541011034834
  138. Williams et al. (1987) Potential of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and carbon-fibre-reinforced PEEK in medical applications (pp. 188-190) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01728981
  139. Wong et al. (2021) Modified porous microstructure for improving bone compatibility of poly-ether-ether-ketone https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104541
  140. Wu et al. (2014) Manufacture and thermal deformation analysis of semicrystalline polymer polyether ether ketone by 3D printing https://doi.org/10.1179/1432891714Z.000000000898
  141. Wu et al. (2015) Influence of layer thickness and raster angle on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed PEEK and a comparative mechanical study between PEEK and ABS (pp. 5834-5846) https://doi.org/10.3390/ma8095271
  142. Xu et al. (2019) A hierarchical nanostructural coating of amorphous silicon nitride on polyetheretherketone with antibacterial activity and promoting responses of rBMSCs for orthopedic applications (pp. 6035-6047) https://doi.org/10.1039/c9tb01565e
  143. Yabutsuka et al. (2017) Effect of pores formation process and oxygen plasma treatment to hydroxyapatite formation on bioactive PEEK prepared by incorporation of precursor of apatite (pp. 349-358) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2017.07.017
  144. Yabutsuka et al. (2018) Fabrication of Bioactive Fiber-reinforced PEEK and MXD6 by Incorporation of Precursor of Apatite (pp. 2254-2265) https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.34025
  145. Yan et al. (2021) Polyetheretherketone with citrate potentiated influx of copper boosts osteogenesis, angiogenesis, and bacteria-triggered antibacterial abilities (pp. 31-43) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmst.2020.08.048
  146. Yang et al. (2017) Influence of thermal processing conditions in 3D printing on the crystallinity and mechanical properties of PEEK material (pp. 1-7) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2017.04.027
  147. Yu et al. (2005) In vitro apatite formation and its growth kinetics on hydroxyapatite/ polyetheretherketone biocomposites (pp. 2343-2352) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.07.028
  148. Yu et al. (2018) Biofunctional Mg coating on PEEK for improving bioactivity (pp. 139-143) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2018.01.007
  149. Zhang et al. (2020) Bionic design and verification of 3D printed PEEK costal cartilage prosthesis https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103561
  150. Zhang et al. (2021) Mechanical property characterization of partially crystalline Poly-Ether-Ether-Ketone https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104600
  151. Zhao et al. (2013) Cytocompatibility, osseointegration, and bioactivity of three-dimensional porous and nanostructured network on polyetheretherketone (pp. 9264-9277) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.08.071
  152. Zhao et al. (2020) Mechanical characterization of biocompatible PEEK by FDM (pp. 28-42) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2020.04.063
  153. Zheng et al. (2021) Effects of printing path and material components on mechanical properties of 3D-printed polyether-ether-ketone/hydroxyapatite composites https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104475
  154. Zheng et al. (2021) Additively-manufactured PEEK/HA porous scaffolds with highly-controllable mechanical properties and excellent biocompatibility https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2021.112333