3d printing

Clinical Reliability of FFF Printed PEEK Implants Quantified

Machined Look vinyl has been found in custom cranial implants for quite a while, as it is strong, light, and biocompatible. Recent work have yielded a variety of printable medical-grade Look filaments with a concentrate on biocompatibility, and for that reason, AM technology is currently being used to produce custom cranial implants at the idea of attention (in a healthcare facility).

FFF Look skull implant materials into the future? (Image credit: IJMS)

As the attractiveness of the material’s usage boosts, there are questions bordering the reliability of implants 3D imprinted in Look.

Some of those reliability-related questions have been replied recently because of a study team from colleges in Switzerland and Holland, who’ve published the brings about a recent paper.

The newspaper offers a quantitative examination of point of care (POC) created, 3D-printed Look implants for cranial reconstruction through characterization of the geometrical, morphological, and biomechanical aspects of the implants involved.

Quite simply the paper can be involved with the scientific consistency of the FFF produced implants overall.

Why use FFF? Because this is the most frequent type of printing technology found in printers.

The analysis results revealed that the printed customized cranial implants experienced high dimensional accuracy and repeatability, and viewed clinically suitable morphologic similarity regarding fit the continuity of the implant curves.

These factors are quite crucial, as the implants are intended to improve the standard of living of the individual, therefore repeatable quality, predictable geometry and fit are essential to the comfort and wellbeing of the individual.

Mechanically speaking, it was pointed out that the analyzed implants of varied models had varying peak load ideals with discrete fracture habits and failed at a mean (SD) top fill of 798.38 ± 211.45 N. That’s the equivalent of about 80kg of power (± around 20kg). Technicians among you might observe that is a reasonably large range. This variability is discussed as being a result of the bonding between tiers, and the air spaces/porosity within the printing.

Different fracture patterns for different images (Image credit: IJMS)

The parts that could stand up to higher makes before fracture were people that have the most standard interlayer bonding, and the ones that fractured under lower forces were people that have greater air spaces between your filament songs in the printing.

The newspaper also states that whenever compared to sintered or machined PEEK implants, the FFF variants tested could actually sustain their overall form after the fracture better.

This insufficient fragmentation in the FFF examples is apparently better for retrieval of failed implants – because surgeons don’t desire to be rooting around for pieces of shattered plastic material in the patient’s mind, presumably. Is practical.

Workflow for characterizing PEEK skull implants (Image credit: IJMS)

Overall, the conclusion of the newspaper states that Look cranial implants branded with the FFF method has satisfactory dimensional accuracy for the use in these implants, is repeatable, and has sufficient durability.

Further work evidently needs to performed to lessen the variability of the leads to terms of the maximum load the implants can stand up to before failing. But overall, it appears that FFF PEEK implants are certainly an avenue worth discovering further, for reasons of machine ease of access and reduced fragmentation compared to molded and SLS’d implants in the same materials.

The full paper entitled “Quantitative Diagnosis of Point-of-Care 3D-Printed Patient-Specific Polyetheretherketone (Look) Cranial Implants” was published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences (IJMS) which is available (open access) at this link, if you want to read more about the study.