Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Figure 12.17
Hybrids of solid (a)
and porous (b) PEEK. (c) Micro-
CT analysis of the interface
between solid and porous
aspects of the hybrid material.
(a)
(b)
(c)
can be met. It may be that new application areas
challenged with unsolved problems could benefit
from porous properties of PEEK. A porous form of
PEEK may be unable to compete directly with the
ability of porous metals for chemical osseointegra-
tion, without also using additional enabling tech-
nologies, such as bioactive fillers or coatings. At the
present time, porous PEEK should not be seen as
solely a directly competing alternative but rather an
additional tool in the armamentarium of the device
manufacturer's toolkit.
the ingrowth of bone, Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.
150 (1980) 263
e
270.
[2] J.D. Bobyn, G.J. Stackpool, S.A. Hacking,
M. Tanzer, J.J. Krygier, Characteristics of bone
ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new
porous tantalum biomaterial, J. Bone Joint Surg.
Br. 81-B (5) (1999) 907
e
914.
[3] S.D. Cook, R.L. Barrack, K.A. Thomas,
R.J. Haddad, Tissue growth into porous primary
and revision femoral stems, J. Arthroplasty 6
(1991) S37
e
S46.
[4] J.J. Romano, N.T. Iliff, P.N. Manson, Use of
Medpor porous polyethylene implants in 140
patients with facial fractures, J. Craniofac. Surg.
4 (3) (1993) 142
e
147.
[5] T. Wellisz, Clinical experience with the Medpor
porous polyethylene implant, Aesthetic Plast.
Surg. 17 (4) (1993) 339
e
344.
[6] T. Imwinkelried, Mechanical properties of
open-pore titanium foam, J. Biomed. Mater.
Res. A 81 (4) (2007) 964
e
970.
[7] A. Moreira-Gonzalez, I.T. Jackson,
T. Miyawaki, V. DiNick, R. Yavuzer,
Augmentation of the craniomaxillofacial region
Acknowledgment
The authors thank David Jaekel at Drexel Univer-
sity, Alexandra Poulsson at the AO Research Founda-
tion, and Peter McFetridge at the University of Florida.
References
[1] J.D. Bobyn, R.M. Pilliar, H.U. Cameron,
G.C. Weatherly, The optimum pore size for the
fixation of porous-surfaced metal implants by
