Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36105676›Full record

ReviewMaterials today. Bio2022

Strategies to improve bioactive and antibacterial properties of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for use as orthopedic implants.

Zhi Zheng, Pengjia Liu, Xingmin Zhang, Jingguo Xin, Yongjie Wang, Xiaosong Zou, Xiaohan Mei, Shuling Zhang, Shaokun Zhang

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Materials today. Bio, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

47 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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.

Zhi ZhengDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130021, China.
Pengjia LiuAustralian Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.
Xingmin ZhangDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130021, China.
Jingguo XinDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130021, China.
Yongjie WangDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130021, China.
Xiaosong ZouDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130021, China.
Xiaohan MeiNational & Local Joint Engineering Laboratory for Synthetic Technology of High Performance Polymer, College of Chemistry, Jilin University, Changchun, 130012, China.
Shuling ZhangNational & Local Joint Engineering Laboratory for Synthetic Technology of High Performance Polymer, College of Chemistry, Jilin University, Changchun, 130012, China.
Shaokun ZhangDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130021, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has gradually become the mainstream material for preparing orthopedic implants due to its similar elastic modulus to human bone, high strength, excellent wear resistance, radiolucency, and biocompatibility. Since the 1990s, PEEK has increasingly been used in orthopedics. Yet, the widespread application of PEEK is limited by its bio-inertness, hydrophobicity, and susceptibility to microbial infections. Further enhancing the osteogenic properties of PEEK-based implants remains a difficult task. This article reviews some modification methods of PEEK in the last five years, including surface modification of PEEK or incorporating materials into the PEEK matrix. For surface modification, PEEK can be modified by chemical treatment, physical treatment, or surface coating with bioactive substances. For PEEK composite material, adding bioactive filler into PEEK through the melting blending method or 3D printing technology can increase the biological activity of PEEK. In addition, some modification methods such as sulfonation treatment of PEEK or grafting antibacterial substances on PEEK can enhance the antibacterial performance of PEEK. These strategies aim to improve the bioactive and antibacterial properties of the modified PEEK. The researchers believe that these modifications could provide valuable guidance on the future design of PEEK orthopedic implants.

Indexed as

Antibacterial propertiesBiocompatibilityCoatingCompositeModificationOrthopedic implantsPolyetheretherketone

Identifiers

PMID36105676
PMCPMC9466655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.