International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of Osteoblastic Activity of Polyether Ether Ketone Modified by Ultraviolet Radiation: An In Vitro Study

Roseline D Meshramkar, Lekha K Pillai, Ramesh K Nadiger

Keywords : Dental implant, Osseointegration, Osteoblastic activity, Polyether ether ketone, Surface treatment, Ultraviolet radiation

Citation Information : Meshramkar RD, Pillai LK, Nadiger RK. Evaluation of Osteoblastic Activity of Polyether Ether Ketone Modified by Ultraviolet Radiation: An In Vitro Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2022; 12 (3):106-109.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1371

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-03-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Purpose: The purpose of this study was to find the effect of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the osteoblastic activity of polyether ether ketone (PEEK). Materials and methods: Thirty samples of PEEK discs were made. The samples were grouped as group I (n = 15) PEEK with no treatment and group II (n = 15) PEEK modified by UV radiation. The experimental group was seeded with human osteoblastic sarcoma cells. The samples were incubated for 48 hours at 37 ± 1°C in a humid atmosphere at 5%. After 48 hours, 2.5% glutaraldehyde was applied to fix the seeded cells to the coverslips. The discs were seen under scanning electron microscopy to evaluate the colony formation and adhesion of osteoblastic cells on the PEEK discs. The observation made was tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis. Results: Noticeable adhesion of osteoblast was found in the UV-treated PEEK samples when compared to PEEK samples with no treatment. The cells in nontreated PEEK samples were less spread and showed few colonies. PEEK modified by UV radiation showed more noticeable osteoblast cells scattered all around the sample. The adhesion of the cells was better as compared to group I. The difference between the test and control group was statistically significant when analyzed by Fisher's exact test. Conclusion: PEEK modified with UV radiation showed more noticeable osteoblast cells scattered all around the sample. The adhesion of the cells in UV-treated samples was better as compared to no treatment.

  1. Schwitalla A, Müller WD. PEEK dental implants: a review of the literature. J Oral Implantol 2013;39(6):743–749. DOI: 10.1563/AAID- JOI-D-11-00002
  2. Andreiotelli M, Wenz HJ, Kohal RJ. Are ceramic implants a viable alternative to titanium implants? A systematic literature review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20(Suppl 4):32–47. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01785.x
  3. Skinner HB. Composite technology for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988;235:224–236. DOI: 10.1097/00003086- 198810000-00022
  4. Wheeler SL. Eight-year clinical retrospective study of titanium plasma-sprayed and hydroxyapatite-coated cylinder implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11(3):340–350. DOI: 10.1097/00008505- 199700610-00042
  5. Lee WT, Koak JY, Lim YJ, et al. Stress shielding and fatigue limits of poly-ether-ether-ketone dental implants. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2012;100(4):1044–1052. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.32669
  6. Wang H, Xu M, Zhang W, et al. Mechanical and biological characteristics of diamond-like carbon coated poly aryl-ether- ether-ketone. Biomaterials 2010;31(32):8181–8187. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.07.054
  7. Rabiei A, Sandukas S. Processing and evaluation of bioactive coatings on polymeric implants. J Biomed Mater Res A 2013;101(9):2621–2629. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.34557
  8. Barkarmo S, Wennerberg A, Hoffman M, et al. Nano-hydroxyapatite- coated PEEK implants: a pilot study in rabbit bone. J Biomed Mater Res A 2013;101(2):465–471. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.34358
  9. Wang L, He S, Wu X, et al. Polyetheretherketone/nano- fluorohydroxyapatite composite with antimicrobial activity and osseointegration properties. Biomaterials 2014;35(25):6758–6775. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.04.085
  10. Schmidlin PR, Stawarczyk B, Wieland M, et al. Effect of different surface pre-treatments and luting materials on shear bond strength to PEEK. Dental Mater 2010;26(6):553–559. DOI: 10.1016/
  11. Poulsson AH, Eglin D, Zeiter S, et al. Osseointegration of machined, injection moulded and oxygen plasma modified PEEK implants in a sheep model. Biomaterials 2014;35(12):3717–3728. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.12.056
  12. Cook SD, Rust-Dawicki AM. Preliminary evaluation of titanium-coated PEEK dental implants. J Oral Implantol 1995;21(3):176–181. DOI: 10.1109/SBEC.1995.514436
  13. Ha SW, Mayer J, Koch B, et al. Plasma-sprayed hydroxylapatite coating on carbon fibre reinforced thermoplastic composite materials. J Materials Sci: Mater Med 1994;5(6):481–484. DOI: 10.1007/BF00058987
  14. Suska F, Omar O, Emanuelsson L, et al. Enhancement of CRF-PEEK osseointegration by plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite: a rabbit model. J Biomate Appl 2014;29(2):234–242. DOI: 10.1177/0885328214521669
  15. Abu Bakar MS, Cheng MH, Tang SM, et al. Tensile properties, tension-tension fatigue and biological response of polyetheretherketone-hydroxyapatite composites for load-bearing orthopedic implants. Biomaterials 2003;24(13):2245–2250. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(03)00028-0
  16. Al Qahtani MS, Wu Y, Spintzyk S, et al. UV-A and UV-C light induced hydrophilization of dental implants. Dent Mater 2015;31(8):e157–e167. DOI: 10.1016/
  17. Ogawa T. Ultraviolet photofunctionalization of titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(1):e95–e102. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.te47
  18. Kuroda K, Igarashi K, Kanetaka H, et al. Surface modification of PEEK and its osteoconductivity and anti-inflammatory properties. J Biomaterials Nanobiotech 2018;9(3):233–243. DOI: 10.4236/jbnb.2018.93013
  19. Nayar S, Chakraverty S. A comparative study to evaluate the osteoblastic cell behavior of two nano coated titanium surfaces with NAFION stabilized the membrane. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2015;15(1):33–38. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.155040
  20. Wu X, Liu X, Wei J, et al. Nano-TiO2/PEEK bioactive composite as a bone substitute material: in vitro and in vivo studies. Int J Nanomedicine 2012;7:1215–1225. DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S28101
  21. Lai YH, Kuo MC, Huang JC, et al. On the PEEK composites reinforced by surface-modified nano-silica. Mater Sci Eng A 2007;458(1–2):158–169. DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2007.01.085
  22. A. M. Rust-Dawicki and S. D. Cook, ”Preliminary evaluation of titanium-coated PEEK implants,” Proceedings of the 1995 Fourteenth Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference, 1995, pp. 75-77. DOI: 10.1109/SBEC.1995.514436
  23. Najeeb S, Zafar MS, Khursid Z, et al. Applications of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in oral implantology and prosthodontics. J Prosthodont Res 2016;60(1):12–19. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2015.10.001
  24. Johansson P, Jimbo R, Kjellin P, et al. Biomechanical evaluation and surface characterization of a nano-modified surface on PEEK implants: a study in the rabbit tibia. Int J Nanomedicine 2014;9:3903–3911. DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S60387
  25. Rupp F, Gittens RA, Scheideler L, et al. A review on the wettability of dental implant surfaces I: theoretical and experimental aspects. Acta Biomater 2014;10(7):2894–2906. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.02.040
  26. Huang RYM, Shao P, Burns CM, et al. Sulfonation of poly(ether ether ketone) (PEEK): kinetic study and characterization. J Appl Polym Sci 2001;82(11):2651–2660. DOI: 10.1002/app.2118
  27. Nieminen T, Kallela I, Wuolijoki E, et al. Amorphous and crystalline polyetheretherketone: mechanical properties and tissue reactions during a 3-year follow-up. J Biomed Mater Res A 2008;84(2):377–383. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.31310
  28. Mathieson I, Bradley RH. Improved adhesion to polymers by UV/ozone surface oxidation. Int J Adhesion Adhesives 1996;16(1):29–31. DOI: 10.1016/0143-7496(96)88482-X
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.