Advertisement

Polymer coatings based on sulfonated-poly-ether-ether-ketone films for implant dentistry applications

  • R. S. Brum
  • P. R. Monich
  • M. C. Fredel
  • G. Contri
  • S. D. A. S. Ramoa
  • R. S. Magini
  • C. A. M. Benfatti
Clinical Applications of Biomaterials Original Research
  • 173 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Clinical Applications of Biomaterials

Abstract

Poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) is one of the most important biocompatible polymers and its sulfonation has been studied for biomedical applications. The aim of the present study is to produce, to characterize and to assess bioactivity of PEEK coatings with sulfonated PEEK (SPEEK) films. Biomedical grade PEEK (Invibio®, Batch: D0602, grade: NI1) was functionalized using sulfuric acid 98%. SPEEK was dissolved into DMSO or into DMF, both at 10% mass/volume. PEEK bars (N = 18) and cylinders (N = 27) were manufactured by compression molding and heating. SPEEK/DMSO and SPEEK/DMF were drop casted at PEEK bars and dip coated at PEEK cylinders (PEEK + SPEEK/DMSO and PEEK + SPEEK/DMF). Characterization was performed through Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), X-Ray Diffraction (XRD), Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and contact angle measurements. Bioactivity was assessed by immersion of samples at SBF for 1, 7 and 21 days, followed by SEM, energy-dispersive analysis (EDX) and FTIR analysis. Statistical analysis was carried out by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (p = 0.05). Characteristic bands of PEEK and SPEEK, were identified through FTIR spectrum analysis, while semicrystallinity was confirmed by XRD. PEEK + SPEEK/DMF showed more evident physicochemical modifications. PEEK + SPEEK/DMSO provided a more regular and hydrophobic surface, observed through SEM and contact angle measurements. SEM/EDX showed that precipitates of calcium were formed at PEEK + SPEEK/DMSO and PEEK + SPEEK/DMF at all experimental times, but materials were not considered bioactive. Interesting surface properties were achieved with SPEEK coatings but the production of SPEEK films at PEEK surface has to be further improved and biologically tested.

Schematic diagram showing the methodology applied in this study to prepare PEEK and SPEEK samples, as well as the promising application of the material

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by a grant from the ITI Foundation, Switzerland. Authors also express their gratitude to CAPES and FAPEU at Brazil. Patricia Rabelo Monich contribution to this work was done before she integrated the NEW-MINE project.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kurtz SM, Devine JN. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials. 2007;28:4845–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown SA, Hastings RS, Mason JJ, Moetet A. Characterization of short-fibre reinforced thermoplastics for fracture fixation devices. Biomaterials. 1990;11:541–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edwards SL, Werkmeister JA. Mechanical evaluation and cell response of woven polyetheretherketone scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2012;100:3326–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee WT, Koak JY, Lim YJ, Kim SK, Kwon HB, Kim MJ. Stress shielding and fatigue limits of poly-ether-ether-ketone dental implants. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2012;100:1044–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schwitalla A, Müller WD. PEEK dental implants: a review of the literature. J Oral Implantol. 2013;39:743–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jin YS, Bian CC, Zhang ZQ, Zhao Y, Yang L. Preparation and characterization of bio-composite PEEK/nHA. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng. 2017;167:012006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bayer S, Komor N, Kramer A, Albrecht D, Mericske-Stern R, Enkling N. Retention force of plastic clips on implant bars: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:1377–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agustín-Panadero R, Serra-Pastor B, Roig-Vanaclocha A, Román-Rodriguez JL, Fons-Font A. Mechanical behavior of provisional implant prosthetic abutments. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015;20:e94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhao Y, Wong HM, Wang W, Li P, Xu Z, Chong EY, et al. Cytocompatibility, osseointegration, and bioactivity of three-dimensional porous and nanostructured network on polyetheretherketone. Biomaterials. 2013;34:9264–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kalambettu A, Dharmalingam S. Fabrication and in vitro evaluation of Sulphonated Polyether Ether Ketone/nano Hydroxyapatite composites as bone graft materials. Mater Chem Phys. 2014;147:168–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montero JF, Tajiri HA, Barra GM, Fredel MC, Benfatti CA, Magini RS, et al. Biofilm behavior on sulfonated poly(ether-ether-ketone) (sPEEK). Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2017;70:456–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    RYM Huang, Shao P, Burns CM, Feng X. Sulfonation of poly(ether ether ketone)(PEEK): Kinetic study and characterization. J Appl Polym Sci. 2001;82:2651–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Conceição TF, Bertolino JR, GMO Barra, Mireski SL, Joussef AC, ATN Pires. Preparation and characterization of poly(ether ether ketone) derivatives. J Braz Chem Soc. 2008;19:111–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mendil-Jakani H, Zamanillo Lopez I, Legrand PM, Mareau VH, Gonon L. A new interpretation of SAXS peaks in sulfonated poly(ether ether ketone) (sPEEK) membranes for fuel cells. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2014;16:11228–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang R, Ming L. Experiment and simulation studies on SPEEK PEM with different sulfonation degrees. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci. 2017;61:012026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Middleton JC, Tipton AJ. Synthetic biodegradable polymers as orthopedic devices. Biomaterials. 2000;21:2335–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    López-Píriz R, Solá-Linares E, Granizo JJ, Díaz-Güemes I, Enciso S, Bartolomé JF, et al. Radiologic evaluation of bone loss at implants with biocide coated titanium abutments: a study in the dog. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e52861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nagano-Takebe F, Miyakawa H, Nakazawa F, Endo K. Inhibition of initial bacterial adhesion on titanium surfaces by lactoferrin coating. Biointerphases. 2014;9:029006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee CT, Huang YW, Zhu L, Weltman R. Prevalences of Peri-implantitis and Peri-Implant Mucositis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Dent. 2017;62:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suárez-López Del, Amo F, Yu SH, Wang HL. Non-Surgical Therapy for Peri-Implant Diseases: a Systematic Review. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2016;7:e13Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kokubo T, Takadama H. How useful is SBF in predicting in vivo bone bioactivity? Biomaterials. 2006;27:2907–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kellner T, Ehmann HM, Schrank S, Kunert B, Zimmer A, Roblegg E. et al. Crystallographic Textures and Morphologies of Solution Cast Ibuprofen Composite Films at Solid Surfaces. Mol Pharm. 2014;11:4084–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Harman DG, Gorkin R, Stevens L, Thompson B, Wagner K, Weng b, et al. Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene): dextran sulfate (PEDOT:DS) – a highly processable conductive organic biopolymer. Acta Biomater. 2015;14:33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wood RP. Titanate nanotubes for reinforcement of a poly(ethylene oxide)/chitosan polymer matrix. Nanotechnology. 2016;27:195706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wedl B, Resel R, Leising G, Kunert B, Salzmann I, Oehzelt M, et al. Crystallisation kinetics in thin films of dihexyl-terthiophene: the appearance of polymorphic phases. RSC Adv. 2012;2:4404–4414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ren Y, Sikder P, Lin B, Bhaduri SB. Microwave assisted coating of bioactive amorphous magnesium phosphate (AMP) on polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Mater Sci & Eng C. 2018;85:107–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guillot R, Pignot-Paintrand I, Lavaud J, Decambron A, Bourgeois E, Josserand V, et al. Assessment of a polyelectrolyte multilayer film coating loaded with BMP-2 on titanium and PEEK implants in the rabbit femoral condyle. Acta Biomater. 2016;36:310–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kakinuma H, Ishii K, Ishihama H, Honda M, Toyama Y, Matsumoto M, et al. Antibacterial polyetheretherketone implants immobilized with silver ions based on chelate-bonding ability of inositol phosphate: processing, material characterization, cytotoxicity, and antibacterial properties. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2015;103:57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jun MS, Choi YW, Kim JD. Solvent casting effects of sulfonated poly(ether ether ketone) for Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell. J Memb Sci. 2012;396:32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pramanik S, Kar KK. Functionalized poly(ether ether ketone): Improved mechanical property and acellular bioactivity. J Appl Polym Sci. 2012;123:1100–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zaidi SMJ. Polymer sulfonation – a versatile route to prepare proton-conducting membrane material for advanced technologies. Arab J Sci Eng. 2003;28:183–94.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim AR, Vinothkannan M, Yoo DJ. Sulfonated-fluorinated copolymer blending membranes containing SPEEK for use as the electrolyte in polymer electrolyte fuel cells (PEFC). Int J Hydrog Energy. 2017;42:4349–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tripathi BP, Shahi VK. SPEEK–zirconium hydrogen phosphate composite membranes with low methanol permeability prepared by electro-migration and in situ precipitation. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2007;316:612–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gahlot S, Kulshrestha V. Dramatic Improvement in Water Retention and Proton Conductivity in Electrically Aligned Functionalized CNT/SPEEK Nanohybrid PEM. ACS Appl Mater & Interfaces. 2015;7:264–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Teughels W, Assche N, Sliepen I, Quirynen M. Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17:68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Quirynen M, Marechal M, Busscher HJ, Weerkamp AH, Arends J, Darius P, et al. The influence of surface free-energy on planimetric plaque growth in man. J Dent Res. 1989;68:796–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nedeljkovic I, De Munck J, Ungureanu AA, Slomka V, Bartic C, Vananroye A, et al. Biofilm-induced changes to the composite surface. Journal of Dentistry, 2017.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cortizo MC, Oberti TG, Cortizo MS, Cortizo AM, Fernández Lorenzo de Mele MA. Chlorhexidine delivery system from titanium/polybenzyl acrylate coating: evaluation of cytotoxicity and early bacterial adhesion. J Dent. 2012;40:329–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Baştan FE, Atiq Ur Rehman M, Avcu YY, Avcu E, Üstel F, Boccaccini AR. Electrophoretic co-deposition of PEEK-hydroxyapatite compositecoatings for biomedical applications. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces. 2018;169:176–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sanz-Sánchez I, Sanz-Martín I, Carrillo de Albornoz A, Figuero E, Sanz M. Biological effect of the abutment material on the stability of peri-implant marginal bone levels: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 1-21Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhang J, Wei W, Yang L, Pan Y, Wang X, Wang T, et al. Stimulation of cell responses and bone ingrowth intomacro-microporous implants of nano-bioglass/polyetheretherketonecomposite and enhanced antibacterial activity by release of hinokitiol. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces. 2018;164:347–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yuan B, Cheng Q, Zhao R, Zhu X, Yang X, Yang X, et al. Comparison of osteointegration property between PEKK and PEEK: Effects of surface structure and chemistry. Biomaterials. 2018;170:116–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jimoh OA, Otitoju TA, Hussin H, Ariffin KS, Baharun N. Understanding the Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (PCC) Production Mechanism and Its Characteristics in the Liquid–gas System Using Milk of Lime (MOL) Suspension. S Afr J Chem. 2017;70:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wang X, Shi L, Zhang J, Cheng J, Wang X. In situ formation of surface-functionalized ionic calcium carbonate nanoparticles with liquid-like behaviours and their electrical properties. R Soc Open Sci. 2018;5:170732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. S. Brum
    • 1
  • P. R. Monich
    • 2
  • M. C. Fredel
    • 2
  • G. Contri
    • 2
  • S. D. A. S. Ramoa
    • 2
  • R. S. Magini
    • 1
  • C. A. M. Benfatti
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Research on Dental Implants (CEPID), School of Dentistry (ODT)Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC)Florianopolis/SCBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical Engineering (EMC)Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC)Florianopolis/SCBrazil

Personalised recommendations