Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37179256›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2023

Novel 3D printable PEEK-HA-Mg

Naresh Kumar, Sridharan Alathur Ramakrishnan, Keith Gerard Lopez, Niyou Wang, Balamurugan A Vellayappan, James Thomas Patrick Decourcy Hallinan, Jerry Ying Hsi Fuh, A Senthil Kumar

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Naresh KumarDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Health System, Level 11 Tower Block, 1E, Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore. dosksn@nus.edu.sg.ORCID 0000-0003-4538-5031
Sridharan Alathur RamakrishnanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Health System, Level 11 Tower Block, 1E, Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Keith Gerard LopezDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Health System, Level 11 Tower Block, 1E, Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Niyou WangDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, 9 Engineering Drive 1, Singapore, 117575, Singapore.
Balamurugan A VellayappanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National University Health System, Level 7, Tower Block, 1E, Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
James Thomas Patrick Decourcy HallinanDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, National University Hospital, National University Hospital Main Building, Level 2, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Rd, Singapore, 119074, Singapore.
Jerry Ying Hsi FuhDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, #04-18 Block EA, 9 Engineering Drive 1, Singapore, 117575, Singapore.
A Senthil KumarDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, #05-26 Block EA, 9 Engineering Drive 1, Singapore, 117575, Singapore.

Funding

National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Cluster Grant No: 2019024
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo develop a novel 3D printable polyether ether ketone (PEEK)-hydroxyapatite (HA)-magnesium orthosilicate (Mg

methodsMaterials were prepared in three different compositions, namely composite A: 75 weight % PEEK, 20 weight % HA, 5 weight % Mg

resultsComposite A resulted in optimal material processing to obtain a 3D printable filament, while composite B and C resulted in non-optimal processing. Composite A enhanced cell viability up to ~ 20% compared to PEEK and PEEK-HA materials. Composite A cage generated minimal/no artefacts on CT and MR imaging and the images were comparable to that of PEEK and PEEK-HA cages.

conclusionComposite A demonstrated superior bioactivity vs PEEK and PEEK-HA materials and comparable imaging compatibility vs PEEK and PEEK-HA. Therefore, our material displays an excellent potential to manufacture spine implants with enhanced mechanical and bioactive property.

Indexed as

DurapatitePolyethylene GlycolsBenzophenonesHumansKetonesPolymersBenzophenonesDurapatiteKetonespolyetheretherketonePolyethylene GlycolsPolymers3D printingImplantsMagnesium orthosilicatePEEKSpine

Identifiers

PMID37179256

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.