ArticlePolymers2022
Improved Mechanical Properties and Bioactivity of Silicate Based Bioceramics Reinforced Poly(ether-ether-ketone) Nanocomposites for Prosthetic Dental Implantology.
Article in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cytotoxicity evaluation, porosity and physicochemical study of bioactive glass nanocomposites for tissue engineering.Toxicology reports · 2026Article
- Biomimetic Surface Engineering Strategies for Enhanced Osseointegration and Peri-Implant Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Fueling failure or fostering fusion? A critical review of the potential effect of ketogenic, intermittent fasting, and low-carbohydrate diets on dental implant osseointegration.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Review
- Tribology of dental materials: from laboratory metrics to clinical durability: review and translational roadmap.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical Properties, Color Stability, and Surface Roughness of Gingiva-Shaded Composites.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Digital Accuracy of Closed-Tray Implant Impressions: Influence of Polyvinyl Siloxane Viscosity and Subgingival Posterior Implant Angulation.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Enhancing PEEK bond strength: the impact of chemical and mechanical surface modifications on surface characteristics and phase transformation.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Revolutionizing Dental Polymers: The Versatility and Future Potential of Polyetheretherketone in Restorative Dentistry.Polymers · 2024Review
- Biomimetic Coatings in Implant Dentistry: A Quick Update.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Review
- Comparative Evaluation of TiONanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Toothbrushing Effects on Surface Properties and Color Stability of CAD/CAM and Pressable Ceramic Fixed Restorations-An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Bioceramics in Endodontics: Updates and Future Perspectives.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Additive manufacturing technologies in the oral implant clinic: A review of current applications and progress.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- Tests of Dental Properties of Composite Materials Containing Nanohybrid Filler.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Preparation and Characterization of a Polyetherketoneketone/Hydroxyapatite Hybrid for Dental Applications.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) biomaterial has been increasingly employed for orthopedic, trauma, spinal, and dental implants due to its biocompatibility and in vivo stability. However, a lack of bioactivity and binding ability to natural bone tissue has significantly limited PEEK for many challenging dental implant applications. In this work, nanocomposites based on PEEK reinforced with bioactive silicate-based bioceramics (forsterite or bioglass) as nanofillers were prepared using high energy ball milling followed by melt blending and compression molding. The influence of nanofillers type and content (10, 20 and 30 wt.%) on the crystalline structure, morphology, surface roughness, hydrophilicity, microhardness, elastic compression modulus, and flexural strength of the nanocomposites was investigated. The scanning electron microscopy images of the nanocomposites with low nanofillers content showed a homogenous surface with uniform dispersion within the PEEK matrix with no agglomerates. All nanocomposites showed an increased surface roughness compared to pristine PEEK. It was found that the incorporation of 20 wt.% forsterite was the most effective in the nanocomposite formulation compared with bioglass-based nanocomposites; it has significantly improved the elastic modulus, flexural strength, and microhardness. In vitro bioactivity evaluation, which used biomimetic simulated body fluid indicated the ability of PEEK nanocomposites loaded with forsterite or bioglass nanofillers to precipitate calcium and phosphate bone minerals on its surface. These nanocomposites are expected to be used in long-term load-bearing implant applications and could be recommended as a promising alternative to titanium and zirconia when used as a dental implant material.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.