Display options
Share it on

Materials (Basel). 2018 Oct 10;11(10). doi: 10.3390/ma11101923.

A Novel Approach for Assessing the Fatigue Behavior of PEEK in a Physiologically Relevant Environment.

Materials (Basel, Switzerland)

Mirco Peron, Jan Torgersen, Filippo Berto

Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Richard Birkelands vei 2b, 7034 Trondheim, Norway. [email protected].
  2. Department of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Richard Birkelands vei 2b, 7034 Trondheim, Norway. [email protected].
  3. Department of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Richard Birkelands vei 2b, 7034 Trondheim, Norway. [email protected].

PMID: 30308932 PMCID: PMC6213617 DOI: 10.3390/ma11101923

Abstract

In recent years, the need of surgical procedures has continuously increased and, therefore, researchers and clinicians are broadly focusing on the development of new biocompatible materials. Among them, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has gained wide interest in load-bearing applications due to its yielding behaviour and its superior corrosion resistance. To assure its reliability in these applications where notches and other stress concentrators weaken implants resistance, a design tool for assessing its tensile and fatigue behaviour in the presence of geometrical discontinuities is highly claimed. Herein, a new fatigue design method based on a local approach is proposed for PEEK implant, and the results are compared with those obtained using the two main biomaterial design approaches available in literature, i.e., the theory of critical distances (TCD) and the notch stress intensity factor (NSIF) approach. To this aim, previously published datasets of PEEK-notched specimens are used, and the proposed method is reported to provide more accurate results and to be robust for different notch geometries.

Keywords: NSIF; PEEK; PEEK implants; biomaterial; fatigue assessment; strain energy density; theory of critical distances

References

  1. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2010 Aug;9(4):389-402 - PubMed
  2. Biomaterials. 1998 Aug;19(15):1329-42 - PubMed
  3. J Polym Sci B Polym Phys. 2011 Jun 15;49(12):832-864 - PubMed
  4. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2014 Jul;25(7):1825-30 - PubMed
  5. Biomaterials. 2002 Jun;23(12):2459-65 - PubMed
  6. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 1991;10(3):38-41 - PubMed
  7. Int J Biomater. 2012;2012:245727 - PubMed
  8. Biomaterials. 2010 Dec;31(35):9156-62 - PubMed
  9. Dent J (Basel). 2017 Dec 15;5(4):null - PubMed
  10. Materials (Basel). 2017 Dec 13;10(12):null - PubMed
  11. Materials (Basel). 2015 Mar 05;8(3):932-958 - PubMed
  12. Int J Prosthodont. 2004 Sep-Oct;17(5):536-43 - PubMed
  13. Toxicol Pathol. 2008 Jan;36(1):85-91 - PubMed
  14. J Control Release. 2006 Jun 28;113(2):102-10 - PubMed
  15. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:6285620 - PubMed
  16. Br Med Bull. 2001;59:227-48 - PubMed
  17. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992 Jan;(274):124-34 - PubMed
  18. Macromol Rapid Commun. 2010 Sep 1;31(17):1487-91 - PubMed
  19. J Biomech. 2008;41(3):603-9 - PubMed
  20. Materials (Basel). 2018 Apr 25;11(5):null - PubMed
  21. Biomaterials. 2009 Oct;30(30):5897-909 - PubMed
  22. Heliyon. 2017 Sep 18;3(8):e00374 - PubMed
  23. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2012 May;100(4):1044-52 - PubMed
  24. Biomaterials. 2008 Apr;29(11):1563-72 - PubMed
  25. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 Jan-Feb;12(1):35-9 - PubMed
  26. Biomaterials. 2009 Nov;30(33):6485-94 - PubMed
  27. Eur Spine J. 2010 Jun;19(6):1004-9 - PubMed
  28. J Oral Implantol. 2013 Dec;39(6):743-9 - PubMed
  29. Biomaterials. 2007 Nov;28(32):4845-69 - PubMed

Publication Types