Abstract
The main obstacles in the melt-processing of hydroxyapatite (HA) and carbon fiber (CF) reinforced polyetheretherketone (PEEK) composite are the high melting temperature of PEEK, poor dispersion of HA nanofillers, and poor processability due to high filler content. In this study, we prepared PEEK/HA/CF ternary composite using two different non-melt blending methods; suspension blending (SUS) in ethanol and mechanofusion process (MF) in dry condition. We compared the mechanical properties and bioactivity of the composite in a spinal cage application in the orthopedic field. Results showed that the PEEK/HA/CF composite made by the MF method exhibited higher flexural and compressive strengths than the composite prepared by the SUS method due to the enhanced dispersibility of HA nanofiller. On the basis of in vitro cell compatibility and cell attachment tests, PEEK/HA/CF composite by mechanofusion process showed an improvement in in vitro bioactivity and osteo-compatibility.
Highlights
In spinal cage applications, metals such as titanium (Ti) and stainless steel have been widely used for metallic implants due to their excellent corrosion resistance, biocompatibility, mechanical strength, and friction resistance
PEEK and carbon fiber (CF) were covered with HA fillers after mechanofusion process (MF) process (Figure 2d)
The improved strength of the interfacial adhesion between PEEK matrix and CF fillers indicated the stresses applied to the composites were transferred from the PEEK matrix to the CF fillers, resulting in improved mechanical strengths of PEEK/HA/CF composite prepared by the MF method. These results demonstrated that MF method could improve flexural and strengths of PEEK/HA/CF ternary composite by enhancing dispersion11ofofthe
Summary
Metals such as titanium (Ti) and stainless steel have been widely used for metallic implants due to their excellent corrosion resistance, biocompatibility, mechanical strength, and friction resistance. Glass-ceramics such as Apatite-Wollastonite (A-W) are used in the spinal cage application due to their good biocompatibility, low cost, and ware resistance. A large number of polymers such as polyethylene (PE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polysulfone (PS), poly(lactic acid) (PLA), and poly(glycolic acid) (PGA) have been used in specific biomedical applications [5]. These polymers are not suitable for use as a spinal cage application due to their low mechanical strength and modulus
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
