Full Text:  <639>

Summary:  <144>

CLC number: 

On-line Access: 2022-03-09

Received: 2021-07-13

Revision Accepted: 2021-11-23

Crosschecked: 0000-00-00

Cited: 0

Clicked: 830

Citations:  Bibtex RefMan EndNote GB/T7714


Dan Yu


Huiyong ZHU


-   Go to

Article info.
Open peer comments

Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B

Accepted manuscript available online (unedited version)

Modification of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) physical features to improve osteointegration

Author(s):  Dan YU, Xiaoyue LEI, Huiyong ZHU

Affiliation(s):  Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, China; more

Corresponding email(s):  zhuhuiyong@zju.edu.cn

Key Words:  Polyetheretherketone (PEEK); Surface topography; Architecture; Stiffness; Bone integration

Share this article to: More <<< Previous Paper|Next Paper >>>

Dan YU, Xiaoyue LEI, Huiyong ZHU. Modification of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) physical features to improve osteointegration[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University Science B, 2022, 23(2): 189-203.

@article{title="Modification of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) physical features to improve osteointegration",
author="Dan YU, Xiaoyue LEI, Huiyong ZHU",
journal="Journal of Zhejiang University Science B",
publisher="Zhejiang University Press & Springer",

%0 Journal Article
%T Modification of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) physical features to improve osteointegration
%A Dan YU
%A Xiaoyue LEI
%A Huiyong ZHU
%J Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B
%V 23
%N 3
%P 189-203
%@ 1673-1581
%D 2022
%I Zhejiang University Press & Springer

T1 - Modification of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) physical features to improve osteointegration
A1 - Dan YU
A1 - Xiaoyue LEI
A1 - Huiyong ZHU
J0 - Journal of Zhejiang University Science B
VL - 23
IS - 3
SP - 189
EP - 203
%@ 1673-1581
Y1 - 2022
PB - Zhejiang University Press & Springer
ER -

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has been widely applied in orthopedics because of its excellent mechanical properties, radiolucency, and biocompatibility. However, the bioinertness and poor osteointegration of PEEK have greatly limited its further application. Growing evidence proves that physical factors of implants, including their architecture, surface morphology, stiffness, and mechanical stimulation, matter as much as the composition of their surface chemistry. This review focuses on the multiple strategies for the physical modification of PEEK implants through adjusting their architecture, surface morphology, and stiffness. Many research findings show that transforming the architecture and incorporating reinforcing fillers into PEEK can affect both its mechanical strength and cellular responses. Modified PEEK surfaces at the macro scale and micro/nano scale have positive effects on cell–substrate interactions. More investigations are necessary to reach consensus on the optimal design of PEEK implants and to explore the efficiency of various functional implant surfaces. Soft-tissue integration has been ignored, though evidence shows that physical modifications also improve the adhesion of soft tissue. In the future, ideal PEEK implants should have a desirable topological structure with better surface hydrophilicity and optimum surface chemistry.




Darkslateblue:Affiliate; Royal Blue:Author; Turquoise:Article


[1]AbuhusseinH, PagniG, RebaudiA, et al., 2010. The effect of thread pattern upon implant osseointegration. Clin Oral Implants Res, 21(2):129-136.

[2]AjamiS, CoathupMJ, KhouryJ, et al., 2017. Augmenting the bioactivity of polyetheretherketone using a novel accelerated neutral atom beam technique. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater, 105(6):1438-1446.

[3]AkkanCK, HammadehM, BrückS, et al., 2013. Plasma and short pulse laser treatment of medical grade PEEK surfaces for controlled wetting. Mater Lett, 109:261-264.

[4]AlmasiD, IqbalN, SadeghiM, et al., 2016. Preparation methods for improving PEEK’s bioactivity for orthopedic and dental application: a review. Int J Biomater, 2016:8202653.

[5]AttaranM, 2017. The rise of 3-D printing: the advantages of additive manufacturing over traditional manufacturing. Business Horiz, 60(5):677-688.

[6]AwajaF, BaxDV, ZhangS, et al., 2012. Cell adhesion to PEEK treated by plasma immersion ion implantation and deposition for active medical implants. Plasma Processes Polym, 9(4):355-362.

[7]BerentZT, JohnsonAJW, 2020. Cell seeding simulation on micropatterned islands shows cell density depends on area to perimeter ratio, not on island size or shape. Acta Biomater, 107:152-163.

[8]BiggsMJP, RichardsRG, DalbyMJ, 2010. Nanotopographical modification: a regulator of cellular function through focal adhesions. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med, 6(5):619-633.

[9]BoschettoF, MarinE, OhgitaniE, et al., 2021. Surface functionalization of PEEK with silicon nitride. Biomed Mater, 16(1):015015.

[10]BriemD, StrametzS, SchröderK, et al., 2005. Response of primary fibroblasts and osteoblasts to plasma treated polyetheretherketone (PEEK) surfaces. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 16(7):671-677.

[11]BuckE, LiH, CerrutiM, 2020. Surface modification strategies to improve the osseointegration of poly(etheretherketone) and its composites. Macromol Biosci, 20(2):1900271.

[12]Caballé-SerranoJ, ChappuisV, MonjeA, et al., 2019. Soft tissue response to dental implant closure caps made of either polyetheretherketone (PEEK) or titanium. Clin Oral Implants Res, 30(8):808-816.

[13]CaiL, PanYK, TangSC, et al., 2017. Macro-mesoporous composites containing PEEK and mesoporous diopside as bone implants: characterization, in vitro mineralization, cytocompatibility, and vascularization potential and osteogenesis in vivo. J Mater Chem B, 5(42):8337-8352.

[14]CaiL, ZhangJ, QianJ, et al., 2018. The effects of surface bioactivity and sustained-release of genistein from a mesoporous magnesium-calcium-silicate/PK composite stimulating cell responses in vitro, and promoting osteogenesis and enhancing osseointegration in vivo. Biomater Sci, 6(4):842-853.

[15]ChaudhuriO, Cooper-WhiteJ, JanmeyPA, et al., 2020. Effects of extracellular matrix viscoelasticity on cellular behaviour. Nature, 584(7822):535-546.

[16]ChenML, OuyangLP, LuT, et al., 2017. Enhanced bioactivity and bacteriostasis of surface fluorinated polyetheretherketone. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 9(20):16824-16833.

[17]ChengKJ, LiuYF, WangR, et al., 2020. Topological optimization of 3D printed bone analog with PEKK for surgical mandibular reconstruction. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 107:103758.

[18]ChengQW, YuanB, ChenXN, et al., 2019. Regulation of surface micro/nano structure and composition of polyetheretherketone and their influence on the behavior of MC3T3-E1 pre-osteoblasts. J Mater Chem B, 7(37):5713-5724.

[19]ConradTL, RoederRK, 2020. Effects of porogen morphology on the architecture, permeability, and mechanical properties of hydroxyapatite whisker reinforced polyetheretherketone scaffolds. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 106:103730.

[20]ConverseGL, YueWM, RoederRK, 2007. Processing and tensile properties of hydroxyapatite-whisker-reinforced polyetheretherketone. Biomaterials, 28(6):927-935.

[21]ConverseGL, ConradTL, RoederRK, 2009. Mechanical properties of hydroxyapatite whisker reinforced polyetherketoneketone composite scaffolds. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2(6):627-635.

[22]CorderoD, López-ÁlvarezM, Rodríguez-ValenciaC, et al., 2013. In vitro response of pre-osteoblastic cells to laser microgrooved PEEK. Biomed Mater, 8(5):055006.

[23]DengY, LiuXC, XuAX, et al., 2015. Effect of surface roughness on osteogenesis in vitro and osseointegration in vivo of carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone-nanohydroxyapatite composite. Int J Nanomed, 10(1):1425-1447.

[24]di MaggioB, SessaP, MantelliP, et al., 2017. PEEK radiolucent plate for distal radius fractures: multicentre clinical results at 12 months follow up. Injury, 48(Suppl 3):S34-S38.

[25]DuncanAC, WeisbuchF, RouaisF, et al., 2002. Laser microfabricated model surfaces for controlled cell growth. Biosens Bioelectron, 17(5):413-426.

[26]EliasCN, OshidaY, LimaJHC, et al., 2008. Relationship between surface properties (roughness, wettability and morphology) of titanium and dental implant removal torque. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 1(3):234-242.

[27]EnglerAJ, SenS, SweeneyHL, et al., 2006. Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell, 126(4):677-689.

[28]EvansNT, TorstrickFB, LeeCSD, et al., 2015. High-strength, surface-porous polyether-ether-ketone for load-bearing orthopedic implants. Acta Biomater, 13:159-167.

[29]FengXB, MaL, LiangH, et al., 2020. Osteointegration of 3D-printed fully porous polyetheretherketone scaffolds with different pore sizes. ACS Omega, 5(41):26655-26666.

[30]FengXK, YuH, LiuH, et al., 2019. Three-dimensionally-printed polyether-ether-ketone implant with a cross-linked structure and acid-etched microporous surface promotes integration with soft tissue. Int J Mol Sci, 20(15):3811.

[31]FuQ, GabrielM, SchmidtF, et al., 2021. The impact of different low-pressure plasma types on the physical, chemical and biological surface properties of PEEK. Dent Mater, 37(1):e15-e22.

[32]FukudaN, KanazawaM, TsuruK, et al., 2018. Synergistic effect of surface phosphorylation and micro-roughness on enhanced osseointegration ability of poly(ether ether ketone) in the rabbit tibia. Sci Rep, 8:16887.

[33]GanK, LiuH, JiangLL, et al., 2016. Bioactivity and antibacterial effect of nitrogen plasma immersion ion implantation on polyetheretherketone. Dent Mater, 32(11):e263-e274.

[34]GaoA, LiaoQ, XieLX, et al., 2020. Tuning the surface immunomodulatory functions of polyetheretherketone for enhanced osseointegration. Biomaterials, 230:119642.

[35]GheisarifarM, ThompsonGA, DragoC, et al., 2021. In vitro study of surface alterations to polyetheretherketone and titanium and their effect upon human gingival fibroblasts. J Prosthet Dent, 125(1):155-164.

[36]GrassiS, PiattelliA, de FigueiredoLC, et al., 2006. Histologic evaluation of early human bone response to different implant surfaces. J Periodontol, 77(10):1736-1743.

[37]GriffinMF, PalgraveRG, SeifalianAM, et al., 2016. Enhancing tissue integration and angiogenesis of a novel nanocomposite polymer using plasma surface polymerisation, an in vitro and in vivo study. Biomater Sci, 4(1):145-158.

[38]GuiN, XuW, MyersDE, et al., 2018. The effect of ordered and partially ordered surface topography on bone cell responses: a review. Biomater Sci, 6(2):250-264.

[39]GuillotR, Pignot-PaintrandI, LavaudJ, et al., 2016. Assessment of a polyelectrolyte multilayer film coating loaded with BMP-2 on titanium and PEEK implants in the rabbit femoral condyle. Acta Biomater, 36:310-322.

[40]GültanT, YurtseverMC, GümüşderelioğluM, 2020. NaOH-etched/boron-doped nanohydroxyapatite-coated PEEK implants enhance the proliferation and differentiation of osteogenic cells. Biomed Mater, 15(3):035019.

[41]HanXT, YangD, YangCC, et al., 2019a. Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK composites based on 3D-printing technology for orthopedic and dental applications. J Clin Med, 8(2):240.

[42]HanXT, SharmaN, XuZQ, et al., 2019b. An in vitro study of osteoblast response on fused-filament fabrication 3D printed PEEK for dental and cranio-maxillofacial implants. J Clin Med, 8(6):771.

[43]HaoZC, SongZH, HuangJ, et al., 2017. The scaffold microenvironment for stem cell based bone tissue engineering. Biomater Sci, 5(8):1382-1392.

[44]HassanEAM, GeDT, YangLL, et al., 2018. Highly boosting the interlaminar shear strength of CF/PEEK composites via introduction of PEKK onto activated CF. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf, 112:155-160.

[45]HeXH, DengY, YuY, et al., 2019. Drug-loaded/grafted peptide-modified porous PEEK to promote bone tissue repair and eliminate bacteria. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 181:767-777.

[46]HiedaA, UemuraN, HashimotoY, et al., 2017. In vivo bioactivity of porous polyetheretherketone with a foamed surface. Dent Mater J, 36(2):222-229.

[47]HoangD, PerraultD, StevanovicM, et al., 2016. Surgical applications of three-dimensional printing: a review of the current literature & how to get started. Ann Transl Med, 4(23):456.

[48]HouQP, GrijpmaDW, FeijenJ, 2003. Porous polymeric structures for tissue engineering prepared by a coagulation, compression moulding and salt leaching technique. Biomaterials, 24(11):1937-1947.

[49]HuangZH, WanYZ, ZhuXB, et al., 2021. Simultaneous engineering of nanofillers and patterned surface macropores of graphene/hydroxyapatite/polyetheretherketone ternary composites for potential bone implants. Mater Sci Eng C, 123:111967.

[50]Jarman-SmithM, BradyM, KurtzSM, et al., 2011. Porosity in polyaryletheretherketone. In: Kurtz SM (Ed.), PEEK Biomaterials Handbook. Elsevier Science, Oxford, p.181-199.

[51]KechagiaJZ, IvaskaJ, Roca-CusachsP, 2019. Integrins as biomechanical sensors of the microenvironment. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 20(8):457-473.

[52]KhouryJ, KirkpatrickSR, MaxwellM, et al., 2013. Neutral atom beam technique enhances bioactivity of PEEK. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect B Beam Interact Mater Atoms, 307:630-634.

[53]KhouryJ, MaxwellM, CherianRE, et al., 2017. Enhanced bioactivity and osseointegration of PEEK with accelerated neutral atom beam technology. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater, 105(3):531-543.

[54]KhouryJ, SeleznevaI, PestovS, et al., 2019. Surface bioactivation of PEEK by neutral atom beam technology. Bioact Mater, 4:132-141.

[55]KirkpatrickA, KirkpatrickS, WalshM, et al., 2013. Investigation of accelerated neutral atom beams created from gas cluster ion beams. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect B Beam Interact Mater Atoms, 307:281-289.

[56]KurtzSM, DevineJN, 2007. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials, 28(32):4845-4869.

[57]le GuéhennecL, SoueidanA, LayrolleP, et al., 2007. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent Mater, 23(7):844-854.

[58]LeeWT, KoakJY, LimYJ, et al., 2012. Stress shielding and fatigue limits of poly-ether-ether-ketone dental implants. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater, 100B(4):1044-1052.

[59]LiK, YeungCY, YeungKWK, et al., 2012. Sintered hydroxyapatite/polyetheretherketone nanocomposites: mechanical behavior and biocompatibility. Adv Eng Mater, 14(4):B155-B165.

[60]LiY, WangDL, QinW, et al., 2019. Mechanical properties, hemocompatibility, cytotoxicity and systemic toxicity of carbon fibers/poly(ether-ether-ketone) composites with different fiber lengths as orthopedic implants. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed, 30(18):1709-1724.

[61]LiuCC, BaiJF, WangY, et al., 2021. The effects of three cold plasma treatments on the osteogenic activity and antibacterial property of PEEK. Dent Mater, 37(1):81-93.

[62]MaR, GuoDG, 2019. Evaluating the bioactivity of a hydroxyapatite-incorporated polyetheretherketone biocomposite. J Orthop Surg Res, 14:32.

[63]MaR, WangJL, LiCX, et al., 2020. Effects of different sulfonation times and post-treatment methods on the characterization and cytocompatibility of sulfonated PEEK. J Biomater Appl, 35(3):342-352.

[64]McGilvrayKC, EasleyJ, SeimHB, et al., 2018. Bony ingrowth potential of 3D-printed porous titanium alloy: a direct comparison of interbody cage materials in an in vivo ovine lumbar fusion model. Spine J, 18(7):1250-1260.

[65]MeiSQ, YangLL, PanYK, et al., 2019. Influences of tantalum pentoxide and surface coarsening on surface roughness, hydrophilicity, surface energy, protein adsorption and cell responses to PEEK based biocomposite. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 174:207-215.

[66]MengZQ, QinGH, ZhangB, et al., 2004. DNA damaging effects of sulfur dioxide derivatives in cells from various organs of mice. Mutagenesis, 19(6):465-468.

[67]MishraS, ChowdharyR, 2019. PEEK materials as an alternative to titanium in dental implants: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 21(1):208-222.

[68]MiyazakiT, MatsunamiC, ShirosakiY, 2017. Bioactive carbon-PEEK composites prepared by chemical surface treatment. Mater Sci Eng C, 70:71-75.

[69]MonichPR, BertiFV, PortoLM, et al., 2017. Physicochemical and biological assessment of PEEK composites embedding natural amorphous silica fibers for biomedical applications. Mater Sci Eng C, 79:354-362.

[70]OchsnerPE, 2011. Osteointegration of orthopaedic devices. Semin Immunopathol, 33(3):245-256.

[71]OladapoBI, IsmailSO, BowotoOK, et al., 2020. Lattice design and 3D-printing of PEEK with Ca10(OH)(PO4)3 and in-vitro bio-composite for bone implant. Int J Biol Macromol, 165:50-62.

[72]PanayotovIV, OrtiV, CuisinierF, et al., 2016. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for medical applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 27(7):118.

[73]PetiteH, ViateauV, BensaïdW, et al., 2000. Tissue-engineered bone regeneration. Nat Biotechnol, 18(9):959-963.

[74]QinW, LiY, MaJ, et al., 2019. Mechanical properties and cytotoxicity of hierarchical carbon fiber-reinforced poly(ether-ether-ketone) composites used as implant materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 89:227-233.

[75]QinW, LiY, MaJ, et al., 2020. Osseointegration and biosafety of graphene oxide wrapped porous CF/PEEK composites as implantable materials: the role of surface structure and chemistry. Dent Mater, 36(10):1289-1302.

[76]RangelALR, Falentin-DaudréC, da Silva PimentelBNA, et al., 2020. Nanostructured titanium alloy surfaces for enhanced osteoblast response: a combination of morphology and chemistry. Surf Coat Technol, 383:125226.

[77]RiveiroA, SotoR, ComesañaR, et al., 2012. Laser surface modification of PEEK. Appl Surf Sci, 258(23):9437-9442.

[78]RoskiesM, JordanJO, FangD, et al., 2016. Improving PEEK bioactivity for craniofacial reconstruction using a 3D printed scaffold embedded with mesenchymal stem cells. J Biomater Appl, 31(1):132-139.

[79]SharmaN, AghlmandiS, CaoSS, et al., 2020. Quality characteristics and clinical relevance of in-house 3D-printed customized polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants for craniofacial reconstruction. J Clin Med, 9(9):2818.

[80]SiddiqAR, KennedyAR, 2015. Porous poly-ether ether ketone (PEEK) manufactured by a novel powder route using near-spherical salt bead porogens: characterisation and mechanical properties. Mater Sci Eng C, 47:180-188.

[81]SpeceH, YuT, LawAW, et al., 2020. 3D printed porous PEEK created via fused filament fabrication for osteoconductive orthopaedic surfaces. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 109:103850.

[82]Sunarso, TsuchiyaA, FukudaN, et al., 2018. Effect of micro-roughening of poly(ether ether ketone) on bone marrow derived stem cell and macrophage responses, and osseointegration. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed, 29(12):1375-1388.

[83]SwethaM, SahithiK, MoorthiA, et al., 2010. Biocomposites containing natural polymers and hydroxyapatite for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol, 47(1):1-4.

[84]TangXM, HuangK, DaiJ, et al., 2017. Influences of surface treatments with abrasive paper and sand-blasting on surface morphology, hydrophilicity, mineralization and osteoblasts behaviors of n-CS/PK composite. Sci Rep, 7:568.

[85]TianL, TangN, NgaiT, et al., 2019. Hybrid fracture fixation systems developed for orthopaedic applications: a general review. J Orthop Transl, 16:1-13.

[86]TorstrickFB, EvansNT, StevensHY, et al., 2016. Do surface porosity and pore size influence mechanical properties and cellular response to PEEK? Clin Orthop Relat Res, 474(11):2373-2383.

[87]TorstrickFB, SafranskiDL, BurkusJK, et al., 2017. Getting PEEK to stick to bone: the development of porous PEEK for interbody fusion devices. Tech Orthop, 32(3):158-166.

[88]TorstrickFB, LinASP, PotterD, et al., 2018. Porous PEEK improves the bone-implant interface compared to plasma-sprayed titanium coating on PEEK. Biomaterials, 185:106-116.

[89]TsaiPI, WuMH, LiYY, et al., 2021. Additive-manufactured Ti-6Al-4 V/Polyetheretherketone composite porous cage for interbody fusion: bone growth and biocompatibility evaluation in a porcine model. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 22:171.

[90]UddinMN, DhanasekaranPS, AsmatuluR, 2019. Mechanical properties of highly porous PEEK bionanocomposites incorporated with carbon and hydroxyapatite nanoparticles for scaffold applications. Prog Biomater, 8(3):211-221.

[91]VaeziM, YangSF, 2015. Extrusion-based additive manufacturing of PEEK for biomedical applications. Virtual Phys Prototy, 10(3):123-135.

[92]VaeziM, BlackC, GibbsDMR, et al., 2016. Characterization of new PEEK/HA composites with 3D HA network fabricated by extrusion freeforming. Molecules, 21(6):687.

[93]Vallet-RegíM, Ruiz-HernándezE, 2011. Bioceramics: from bone regeneration to cancer nanomedicine. Adv Mater, 23(44):5177-5218.

[94]WangHY, LuT, MengFH, et al., 2014. Enhanced osteoblast responses to poly ether ether ketone surface modified by water plasma immersion ion implantation. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 117:89-97.

[95]WangL, ZhangK, HaoYQ, et al., 2019. Osteoblast/bone-tissue responses to porous surface of polyetheretherketone-nanoporous lithium-doped magnesium silicate blends’ integration with polyetheretherketone. Int J Nanomed, 14: 4975-4989.

[96]WangSN, DengY, YangL, et al., 2018. Enhanced antibacterial property and osteo-differentiation activity on plasma treated porous polyetheretherketone with hierarchical micro/nano-topography. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed, 29(5):520-542.

[97]WangWG, LuoCJ, HuangJ, et al., 2019. PEEK surface modification by fast ambient-temperature sulfonation for bone implant applications. J R Soc Interface, 16(152):20180955.

[98]WangX, LuT, WenJ, et al., 2016. Selective responses of human gingival fibroblasts and bacteria on carbon fiber reinforced polyetheretherketone with multilevel nanostructured TiO2. Biomaterials, 83:207-218.

[99]WangYL, ZhangYF, MironRJ, 2016. Health, maintenance, and recovery of soft tissues around implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 18(3):618-634.

[100]Waser-AlthausJ, SalamonA, WaserM, et al., 2014. Differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells on plasma-treated polyetheretherketone. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 25(2):515-525.

[101]WeinerS, SimonJ, EhrenbergDS, et al., 2008. The effects of laser microtextured collars upon crestal bone levels of dental implants. Implant Dent, 17(2):217-228.

[102]WuJP, LiLL, FuC, et al., 2018. Micro-porous polyetheretherketone implants decorated with BMP-2 via phosphorylated gelatin coating for enhancing cell adhesion and osteogenic differentiation. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 169:233-241.

[103]WuXM, LiuXC, WeiJ, et al., 2012. Nano-TiO2/PEEK bioactive composite as a bone substitute material: in vitro and in vivo studies. Int J Nanomed, 7:1215-1225.

[104]YabutsukaT, FukushimaK, HirutaT, et al., 2017. Effect of pores formation process and oxygen plasma treatment to hydroxyapatite formation on bioactive PEEK prepared by incorporation of precursor of apatite. Mater Sci Eng C, 81:349-358.

[105]YuD, WangJ, QianKJ, et al., 2020. Effects of nanofibers on mesenchymal stem cells: environmental factors affecting cell adhesion and osteogenic differentiation and their mechanisms. J Zhejiang Univ-Sci B (Biomed & Biotechnol), 21(11):871-884.

[106]YuHD, ChenYJ, MaoM, et al., 2018. PEEK-biphasic bioceramic composites promote mandibular defect repair and upregulate BMP-2 expression in rabbits. Mol Med Rep, 17(6):8221-8227.

[107]YuXZ, YaoS, ChenC, et al., 2020. Preparation of poly(ether-ether-ketone)/nanohydroxyapatite composites with improved mechanical performance and biointerfacial affinity. ACS Omega, 5(45):29398-29406.

[108]YuanB, ChenYM, LinH, et al., 2016. Processing and properties of bioactive surface-porous PEKK. ACS Biomater Sci Eng, 2(6):977-986.

[109]YuanB, ChengQW, ZhaoR, et al., 2018. Comparison of osteointegration property between PEKK and PEEK: effects of surface structure and chemistry. Biomaterials, 170:116-126.

[110]ZhangJ, WeiW, YangLL, et al., 2018. Stimulation of cell responses and bone ingrowth into macro-microporous implants of nano-bioglass/polyetheretherketone composite and enhanced antibacterial activity by release of hinokitiol. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 164:347-357.

[111]ZhangJH, WehrleE, AdamekP, et al., 2020. Optimization of mechanical stiffness and cell density of 3D bioprinted cell-laden scaffolds improves extracellular matrix mineralization and cellular organization for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater, 114:307-322.

[112]ZhaoY, WongHM, WangWH, et al., 2013. Cytocompatibility, osseointegration, and bioactivity of three-dimensional porous and nanostructured network on polyetheretherketone. Biomaterials, 34(37):9264-9277.

[113]ZhaoY, WongHM, LuiSC, et al., 2016. Plasma surface functionalized polyetheretherketone for enhanced osseo-integration at bone-implant interface. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 8(6):3901-3911.

[114]ZhengYY, XiongCD, WangZC, et al., 2015. A combination of CO2 laser and plasma surface modification of poly(etheretherketone) to enhance osteoblast response. Appl Surf Sci, 344:79-88.

[115]ZhouJ, LinH, FangTL, et al., 2010. The repair of large segmental bone defects in the rabbit with vascularized tissue engineered bone. Biomaterials, 31(6):1171-1179.

[116]ZhuH, JiXF, GuanHF, et al., 2019. Tantalum nanoparticles reinforced polyetheretherketone shows enhanced bone formation. Mater Sci Eng C, 101:232-242.

[117]ZhuangY, ZhangCL, ChengMJ, et al., 2021. Challenges and strategies for in situ endothelialization and long-term lumen patency of vascular grafts. Bioact Mater, 6(6):1791-1809.

Open peer comments: Debate/Discuss/Question/Opinion


Please provide your name, email address and a comment

Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE, 38 Zheda Road, Hangzhou 310027, China
Tel: +86-571-87952783; E-mail: cjzhang@zju.edu.cn
Copyright © 2000 - 2022 Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE