Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29414477›Full record

ArticleJournal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials2018

Effect of porous orthopaedic implant material and structure on load sharing with simulated bone ingrowth: A finite element analysis comparing titanium and PEEK.

R Dana Carpenter, Brett S Klosterhoff, F Brennan Torstrick, Kevin T Foley, J Kenneth Burkus, Christopher S D Lee, Ken Gall, Robert E Guldberg, David L Safranski

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 134 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Factors influencing cage subsidence in anterior cervical corpectomy and discectomy: a systematic review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Inset glenoid component stability and bone removal by implantation depth.Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Enhanced antibacterial activity of copper sulfide/polyetheretherketone biocomposites.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

R Dana CarpenterDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA. Electronic address: dana.carpenter@ucdenver.edu.
Brett S KlosterhoffParker H. Petit Institute for Bioengineering & Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA; George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
F Brennan TorstrickParker H. Petit Institute for Bioengineering & Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA; George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Kevin T FoleyDepartments of Neurosurgery, Orthopaedic Surgery, and Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis, TN, USA; Semmes-Murphey Neurologic & Spine Institute, Memphis, TN, USA.
J Kenneth BurkusHughston Clinic, Columbus, GA, USA.
Christopher S D LeeVertera Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA.
Ken GallDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Vertera Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA; MedShape Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA.
Robert E GuldbergParker H. Petit Institute for Bioengineering & Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA; George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
David L SafranskiVertera Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA; MedShape Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA.
Georgia Institute of Technology · USDuke University · USHughston Clinic · USMedShape (United States) · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · USUniversity of Tennessee Health Science Center · US

Funding

Regenerative Rehabilitation of Complex Musculoskeletal InjuriesR01AR069297 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF OREGON · PI ROBERT E Guldberg · 2016 to 2026
$5.6M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR069297
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osseointegration of load-bearing orthopaedic implants, including interbody fusion devices, is critical to long-term biomechanical functionality. Mechanical loads are a key regulator of bone tissue remodeling and maintenance, and stress-shielding due to metal orthopaedic implants being much stiffer than bone has been implicated in clinical observations of long-term bone loss in tissue adjacent to implants. Porous features that accommodate bone ingrowth have improved implant fixation in the short term, but long-term retrieval studies have sometimes demonstrated limited, superficial ingrowth into the pore layer of metal implants and aseptic loosening remains a problem for a subset of patients. Polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) is a widely used orthopaedic material with an elastic modulus more similar to bone than metals, and a manufacturing process to form porous PEEK was recently developed to allow bone ingrowth while preserving strength for load-bearing applications. To investigate the biomechanical implications of porous PEEK compared to porous metals, we analyzed finite element (FE) models of the pore structure-bone interface using two clinically available implants with high (> 60%) porosity, one being constructed from PEEK and the other from electron beam 3D-printed titanium (Ti). The objective of this study was to investigate how porous PEEK and porous Ti mechanical properties affect load sharing with bone within the porous architectures over time. Porous PEEK substantially increased the load share transferred to ingrown bone compared to porous Ti under compression (i.e. at 4 weeks: PEEK = 66%; Ti = 13%), tension (PEEK = 71%; Ti = 12%), and shear (PEEK = 68%; Ti = 9%) at all time points of simulated bone ingrowth. Applying PEEK mechanical properties to the Ti implant geometry and vice versa demonstrated that the observed increases in load sharing with PEEK were primarily due to differences in intrinsic elastic modulus and not pore architecture (i.e. 4 weeks, compression: PEEK material/Ti geometry = 53%; Ti material/PEEK geometry = 12%). Additionally, local tissue energy effective strains on bone tissue adjacent to the implant under spinal load magnitudes were over two-fold higher with porous PEEK than porous Ti (i.e. 4 weeks, compression: PEEK = 784 ± 351 microstrain; Ti = 180 ± 300 microstrain; and 12 weeks, compression: PEEK = 298 ± 88 microstrain; Ti = 121 ± 49 microstrain). The higher local strains on bone tissue in the PEEK pore structure were below previously established thresholds for bone damage but in the range necessary for physiological bone maintenance and adaptation. Placing these strain magnitudes in the context of literature on bone adaptation to mechanical loads, this study suggests that porous PEEK structures may provide a more favorable mechanical environment for bone formation and maintenance under spinal load magnitudes than currently available porous 3D-printed Ti, regardless of the level of bone ingrowth.

Indexed as

BenzophenonesBiocompatible MaterialsBiomechanical PhenomenaBone-Implant InterfaceElastic ModulusFinite Element AnalysisHumansKetonesMaterials TestingOsseointegrationOsteogenesisPolyethylene GlycolsPolymersTitaniumWeight-BearingBenzophenonesBiocompatible MaterialsKetonespolyetheretherketonePolyethylene GlycolsPolymersTitanium3D-printingFinite element analysisImplant fixationOsseointegrationPorous PEEKStress-shieldingTitanium

Identifiers

PMID29414477
PMCPMC7603939
OpenAlexW2789654874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.