Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T03:30:57.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structure–property relationships for 3D-printed PEEK intervertebral lumbar cages produced using fused filament fabrication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2018

Cemile Basgul ,
Tony Yu ,
Daniel W. MacDonald ,
Ryan Siskey ,
Michele Marcolongo  and
Steven M. Kurtz
Cemile Basgul*
Affiliation:
Implant Research Center, School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
Tony Yu
Affiliation:
Materials Science and Engineering, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
Daniel W. MacDonald
Affiliation:
Implant Research Center, School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
Ryan Siskey
Affiliation:
Implant Research Center, School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; and Biomedical Engineering, Exponent, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
Michele Marcolongo
Affiliation:
Materials Science and Engineering, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
Steven M. Kurtz
Affiliation:
Implant Research Center, School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; and Biomedical Engineering, Exponent, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
*
a)Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Recent advances in the additive manufacturing technology now enable fused filament fabrication of polyetheretherketone (PEEK). A standardized lumbar fusion cage design was 3D printed with different speeds of the printhead nozzle to investigate whether 3D-printed PEEK cages exhibit sufficient material properties for lumbar fusion applications. It was observed that the compressive and shear strength of the 3D-printed cages were 63–71% of the machined cages, whereas the torsion strength was 92%. The printing speed is an important printing parameter for 3D-printed PEEK, which resulted in up to 20% porosity at the highest speed of 3000 mm/min, leading to reduced cage strength. Printing speeds below 1500 mm/min can be chosen as the optimal printing speed for this printer to reduce the printing time while maintaining strength. The crystallinity of printed PEEK did not differ significantly from the as-machined PEEK cages from extruded rods, indicating that the processing provides similar microstructure.

Keywords

polymerstrengthbiomaterial
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 33 , Issue 14: Focus Issue: 3D Printing of Biomaterials , 27 July 2018 , pp. 2040 - 2051
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Tack, P., Victor, J., Gemmel, P., and Annemans, L.: 3D-printing techniques in a medical setting: A systematic literature review. Biomed. Eng. Online 15, 115 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eltorai, A.E., Nguyen, E., and Daniels, A.H.: Three-dimensional printing in orthopedic surgery. Orthopedics 38, 684 (2015).Google ScholarPubMed
Gibbs, D.M., Vaezi, M., Yang, S., and Oreffo, R.O.: Hope versus hype: What can additive manufacturing realistically offer trauma and orthopedic surgery? Regener. Med. 9, 535 (2014).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martelli, N., Serrano, C., van den Brink, H., Pineau, J., Prognon, P., Borget, I., and El Batti, S.: Advantages and disadvantages of 3-dimensional printing in surgery: A systematic review. Surgery 159, 1485 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provaggi, E., Leong, J.J.H., and Kalaskar, D.M.: Applications of 3D printing in the management of severe spinal conditions. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part H 231, 471 (2017).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ventola, C.L.: Medical applications for 3D printing: Current and projected uses. P&T 39, 704 (2014).Google ScholarPubMed
Janusz, D., Konstanty, S., Roman, G., and Adrian, M.: Rapid prototyping in the intervertebral implant design process. Rapid Prototyp. J. 21, 735 (2015).Google Scholar
de Beer, N. and van der Merwe, A.: Patient-specific intervertebral disc implants using rapid manufacturing technology. Rapid Prototyp. J. 19, 126 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueroa-Cavazos, J.O., Flores-Villalba, E., Diaz-Elizondo, J.A., Martinez-Romero, O., Rodriguez, C.A., and Siller, H.R.: Design concepts of polycarbonate-based intervertebral lumbar cages: Finite element analysis and compression testing. Appl. Bionics Biomechanics 2016, 7149182 (2016).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serra, T., Capelli, C., Toumpaniari, R., Orriss, I.R., Leong, J.J., Dalgarno, K., and Kalaskar, D.M.: Design and fabrication of 3D-printed anatomically shaped lumbar cage for intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration treatment. Biofabrication 8, 035001 (2016).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figueroa, O., Rodríguez, C.A., Siller, H.R., Martinez-Romero, O., Flores-Villalba, E., Díaz-Elizondo, J., and Ramírez, R.: Lumbar cage design concepts based on additive manufacturing. In High Value Manufacturing: Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid Prototyping, Silva Bártolo, P.H.A., de Lemos, A.C.S., and Pereira, A.M.H., eds. (CRC Press, New York, USA, 2013); ch. 102.Google Scholar
McGilvray, K.C., Waldorff, E.I., Easley, J., Seim, H.B., Zhang, N., Linovitz, R.J., Ryaby, J.T., and Puttlitz, C.M.: Evaluation of a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) titanium composite interbody spacer in an ovine lumbar interbody fusion model: Biomechanical, microcomputed tomographic, and histologic analyses. Spine J. 17, 1907–1916 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asil, K. and Yaldiz, C.: Retrospective comparison of radiological and clinical outcomes of PLIF and TLIF techniques in patients who underwent lumbar spinal posterior stabilization. Medicine 95, (2016).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartolo, P.J.d.S., Lemos, A.C.S.d., Pereira, A.M.H., Mateus, A.J.D.S., Ramos, C., Santos, C.D., Oliveira, D., Pinto, E., Craveiro, F., Bartolo, H.M.C.d.R.T.G., Almeida, H.d.A., Sousa, I., Matias, J.M., Durao, L., Gaspar, M., Alves, N.M.F., Carreira, P., Ferreira, T., and Marques, T.: High Value Manufacturing: Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid Prototyping: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advanced Research in Leiria, Portugal, 1–5 October, 2013 (CRC Press, Inc., Leira, Portugal, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vadapalli, S., Sairyo, K., Goel, V.K., Robon, M., Biyani, A., Khandha, A., and Ebraheim, N.A.: Biomechanical rationale for using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) spacers for lumbar interbody fusion—A finite element study. Spine 31, E992 (2006).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, J.W. and Bailey, R.A.: An analysis of fusion cage migration in unilateral and bilateral fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur. Spine J. 22, 439 (2013).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, M., Pohle, D., and Rechtenwald, T.: Selective laser sintering of PEEK. CIRP Ann. 56, 205 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berretta, S., Evans, K.E., and Ghita, O.: Processability of PEEK, a new polymer for high temperature laser sintering (HT-LS). Eur. Polym. J. 68(Suppl. C), 243 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, W.Z., Geng, P., Zhao, J., Zhang, Y., Rosen, D.W., and Zhang, H.B.: Manufacture and thermal deformation analysis of semicrystalline polymer polyether ether ketone by 3D printing. Mater. Res. Innovations 18(Suppl. 5), S5 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaezi, M. and Yang, S.: Extrusion-based additive manufacturing of PEEK for biomedical applications. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 10, 123 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahman, K.M., Letcher, T., and Reese, R.: Mechanical properties of additively manufactured PEEK components using fused filament fabrication. In ASME 2015 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition Volume 2A: Advanced Manufacturing (Houston, Texas, 2015); p. 57359.Google Scholar
Cicala, G., Latteri, A., Del Curto, B., Lo Russo, A., Recca, G., and Fare, S.: Engineering thermoplastics for additive manufacturing: A critical perspective with experimental evidence to support functional applications. J. Appl. Biomater. Funct. Mater. 15, (2017). doi: 10.5301/jabfm.5000343.Google ScholarPubMed
Kurtz, S.M., ed.: Chapter 2-synthesis and processing of PEEK for surgical implants. In PEEK Biomaterials Handbook (William Andrew Publishing, Oxford, U.K., 2012); p. 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, S.M. and Schlegel, J.: A Polyaryletherketone Biomaterial for Use in Medical Implant Applications (Rapra Technology Limited, Shawbury, Brussels, U.K., 2001); pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Research Report: Interlaboratory Study to Establish Precision Statements for ASTM F2077 (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2014); pp. F04–F1014.Google Scholar
ASTM F2077-17: Test Methods for Intervertebral Body Fusion Devices (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2017).Google Scholar
ISO/IEC 17025:2005: General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories International Organization for Standardization (International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2017).Google Scholar
Hildebrand, T. and Rüegsegger, P.: A new method for the model-independent assessment of thickness in three-dimensional images. J. Microsc. 185, 67 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ASTM F2778-09(2015): Standard Test Method for Measurement of Percent Crystallinity of Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Polymers by Means of Specular Reflectance Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (R-FTIR) (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2015). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1520/F2778-09R15.Google Scholar
Victrex: victrex_tds_450g, Lancashire, U.K., 2018.Google Scholar
White, A.A. and Panjabi, M.M.: Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine (Lippincott, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1978).Google Scholar
Keaveny, T.M. and Buckley, J.M.: Chapter 4-biomechanics of vertebral bone. In Spine Technology Handbook, Kurtz, S.M. and Edidin, A.A., eds. (Academic Press, Burlington, Massachusetts, 2006); p. 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilke, H.J., Neef, P., Caimi, M., Hoogland, T., and Claes, L.E.: New in vivo measurements of pressures in the intervertebral disc in daily life. Spine 24, 755 (1999).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melkerson, M., Kirkpatrick, J., and Griffith, S.: Spinal Implants: Are we Evaluating them Appropriately? (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, R.K., Lo, T.T., Chen, L., and Shih, A.J.: Nano-CT characterization of structural voids and air bubbles in fused deposition modeling for additive manufacturing. In ASME 2015 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference Volume 1: Processing (Charlotte, North Carolina, 2015).Google Scholar
Rybachuk, M., Alice Mauger, C., Fiedler, T., and Öchsner, A.: Anisotropic mechanical properties of fused deposition modeled parts fabricated by using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene polymer. J. Polym. Eng., 37, 699 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sung-Hoon, A., Michael, M., Dan, O., Shad, R., and Paul, K.W.: Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyp. J. 8, 248 (2002).Google Scholar
Sobieraj, M.C. and Rimnac, C.M.: Chapter 5-fracture, fatigue, and notch behavior of PEEK. In PEEK Biomaterials Handbook, Kurtz, S.M., ed. (William Andrew Publishing, Oxford, U.K., 2012); p. 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaekel, D., Medel, F.J., and Kurtz, S.M.: Validation of crystallinity measurements of medical grade PEEK using specular reflectance FTIR-microscopy. In Annual Technical Conference—ANTEC, Conference Proceedings, Vol. 5, 2019; pp. 2511–2516.Google Scholar
Jaekel, D.J., MacDonald, D.W., and Kurtz, S.M.: Characterization of PEEK biomaterials using the small punch test. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 4, 1275 (2011).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Basgul et al. supplementary material

Basgul et al. supplementary material 1

Download Basgul et al. supplementary material(File)
File 88.1 KB