ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Comparing Laboratory and Synchrotron X-Ray CT for Structural Analysis of PEEK Orthopedic Implants.
Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is widely employed in orthopedic applications due to its bone-mimetic mechanical properties and excellent biocompatibility, establishing it as a promising candidate for bone repair and regeneration. However, the investigation of structural integrity and microstructural features of PEEK implants has remained limited owing to its low atomic number (Z < 8) and hierarchical microstructure. This study presents a comparative characterization of PEEK implants by integrating laboratory X-ray computed tomography (CT) and synchrotron X-ray phase-contrast tomography (SXCT). Laboratory X-ray CT, operating on absorption contrast mechanisms, demonstrates adequate capacity for visualizing macroscopic defects and pore architectures, but exhibits limitations in resolving subtle density variations. In contrast, SXCT, employing phase-contrast imaging, significantly enhances discrimination of ultra-low-contrast features, including interconnected pore networks and localized density gradients. This work elucidates the complementary advantages and inherent limitations of both the imaging modalities for characterizing PEEK-based biomaterials. Furthermore, it demonstrates the potential extensibility of this comparative approach to other polymer composites, offering a methodology to investigate material-tissue interactions in orthopedic research and advancing the development of next-generation implantable devices.
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.