ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Evaluation of Cytocompatibility of PEEK-Based Composites as a Function of Manufacturing Processes.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The biocompatible polymer polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is a suitable candidate to be part of potential all-polymer total joint replacements, provided its use is associated with better osseointegration, mechanical performance, and wear resistance. Seeking to meet the aforementioned requirements, respectively, we have manufactured a PEEK composite with different fillers: carbon fibers (CF), hydroxyapatite particles (HA) and graphene platelets (GNP). The mechanical outcomes of the composites with combinations of 0, 1.5, 3.0 wt% GNP, 5 and 15 wt% HA and 30% of wt% CF concentrations pointed out that one of the best filler combinations to achieve the previous objectives was 30 wt% CF, 8 wt% HA and 2 wt% of GNP. The study compares the bioactivity of human osteoblasts on this composite prepared by injection molding with that on the material manufactured by the Fused Filament Fabrication 3D additive technique. The results indicate that the surface adhesion and proliferation of human osteoblasts over time are better with the composite obtained by injection molding than that obtained by 3D printing. This result is more closely correlated with morphological parameters of the composite surface than its wettability behavior.
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.