ArticleBMC oral health2024
A comparative quantitative assessment of 3D-printed PEKK and PEEK thin meshes in customized alveolar bone augmentation.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- 3D finite element analysis of removable partial denture with lingual bar major connector constructed with cobalt chromium, PEEK, PEKK, and BioHPP.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Effect of different titanium mesh thicknesses on mechanical strength and bone stress: a finite element study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Characterization of Material Extrusion-Printed Amorphous Poly(Ether Ketone Ketone) (PEKK) Parts.Polymers · 2025Article
- Sulfonated polyether ketone ketone (SPEKK) implant as an alternative to titanium implant-in vivo study on Wistar Albino rat mandible.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Personalised 3D-printed bioactive peek bone plate scaffold for treating femoral defects.RSC advances · 2025Article
- Assessing the role of PEKK implant material on cytotoxicity, inflammatory response, and molecular interactions with pro-inflammatory cytokines: An in-vitro and in-silico study.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCustomized nonabsorbable membranes are widely used in severe alveolar bone defects and provide sufficient and precise regenerated bone tissue for subsequent dental implant placement. Although 3D-printed polyetheretherketone (PEEK) meshes have confirmed successful use in clinical cases, the performance of a PEEK mesh is not satisfactory. Compared with PEEK, polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) has better mechanical and processing properties. However, whether PEKK is suitable for making customized membranes remains unclear. The objectives of this study were (1) to evaluate the printing precision, surface characteristics, mechanical characteristics and biocompatibility of the PEKK mesh and (2) to compare the properties of the PEKK and PEEK meshes. MATERIALS AND
methodsBoth PEKK and PEEK meshes were designed and manufactured via additive manufacturing technology combined with computer-aided design (CAD). The printing precision was evaluated with a high-resolution extraoral scanner. The surface characteristics were evaluated with a contact angle system and three-dimensional optical microscopy. The mechanical characteristics were evaluated via three-point bending tests and tensile tests. The biocompatibility was evaluated with a CCK-8 assay, live/dead viability assay and qRT-PCT.
resultsCompared with the PEEK mesh, the PEKK mesh exhibited better control in terms of the thickness and aperture area. Both the PEKK mesh and the PEEK mesh had a hydrophobic surface, but the PEKK mesh had a smoother surface. Compared with the PEEK mesh, the PEKK mesh has better compression and tensile properties. Both the PEKK mesh and the PEEK mesh had good biocompatibility. The proliferation of cells on the PEKK mesh was slightly lower than that on the PEEK mesh.
conclusionsCompared with PEEK mesh, PEKK mesh has greater printing accuracy, smoother surfaces, better mechanical properties and similar biocompatibility and is expected to be used in the production of customized barrier membranes for the augmentation of severe bone defects. To ensure the stability of the mesh for clinical application, it is best to control the aperture diameter of the PEKK mesh to less than 2 mm with a thickness of 0.2 μm.
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.