See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/362734918

Mechanical Behavior of 3D Printed Peek and its Application for Personalized

Orbital with Various Infill Pattern and Density

Article in Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials · October 2022

DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4166941

CITATIONS READS

0 341

5 authors, including:

Mohamed Timoumi Najoua Barhoumi

3 PUBLICATIONS 25 CITATIONS
El Manar Preparatory Institute For Engineering Studies
29 PUBLICATIONS 240 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Znaidi Amna Abderrahim Maazouz

Tunis El Manar University Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon
36 PUBLICATIONS 147 CITATIONS 231 PUBLICATIONS 4,819 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Najoua Barhoumi on 29 October 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials 136 (2022) 105534

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmbbm

Mechanical behavior of 3D-printed PEEK and its application for

personalized orbital implants with various infill patterns and densities
Mohamed Timoumi a, b, *, Najoua Barhoumi c, d, Amna Znaidi a, d, Abderrahim Maazouz b,
Khalid Lamnawar b
a
Laboratoire Mécanique Appliquée et Ingénierie (LR-MAI)-ENIT, Tunisie
b
Université de Lyon, CNRS, Ingénierie des Matériaux Polymères, UMR 5223, INSA Lyon, ULyon 1, UJM, F-69621, Villeurbanne, France
c
Laboratoire de Mécanique, Matériaux et Procédés, Université de Tunis, ENSIT, Tunisie
d
Institut Préparatoire aux Etudes d’Ingénieurs d’El-Manar. Université de Tunis El Manar, Tunisie

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study proposed a 3D-printed PEEK with a specific design to restore the damaged orbit shape. Such printed
FDM personalized implants are greatly affected by the process parameters, wherefore the effects of the nozzle tem­
Orbital PEEK implants peratures, printing speed and layer thickness on the tensile properties were investigated based on the Taguchi
Taguchi approach
approach. The optimal mechanical properties, i.e., the tensile strength and Young’s modulus, were found to be
Tensile properties
Finite elements
54.97 MPa and 2.67 GPa, respectively. These properties were obtained by adjusting the nozzle temperature to its
high level (450 ◦ C), while the layer thickness (0.1 mm) and printing speed (20 mm/s) were set to their low levels.
Secondly, the mechanical behavior of a personalized orbital implant with these optimized properties was
evaluated via finite elements analysis with various infill patterns and densities, at three thicknesses: 0.3, 0.5 and
0.7 mm. It was found that all thicknesses were acceptable for the 100% filling. For the honeycomb pattern, the
thicknesses 0.5 and 0.7 mm were satisfactory with a fill rate of 70% and 55% whereas only the thickness of 0.7
mm was suitable for the 40% filling. The honeycomb pattern with 40% filling and a maximum stress (7.186 MPa)
and strain (0.00627 mm) should be beneficial for light-weight orbital implants.

1. Introduction as FDM (Rinaldi et al., 2018), SLS (Yan et al., 2018) and SLA
(Milovanović et al., 2019). In these processes, the parts are created by
Polyether ether ketone (PEEK) is a thermoplastic polymer from the adding successive layers of material under computer control as opposed
family of polyaromatic ether ketones (PAEK) (Kurtz, 2012). This to subtractive manufacturing where material is removed to obtain the
high-performance polymer has attracted the attention of the medical desired shape (Paris et al., 2016).
field since its biocompatibility was confirmed in 1987 (Panayotov et al., In recent years, the increase in road accidents has resulted in larger
2016). It is true that the mechanical properties of the material have demands for facial reconstruction operations, in particular orbital
many similarities with bone (Banoriya et al., 2017) and furthermore it is reconstruction (Kang et al., 1998). The goal of orbital reconstruction is
more suitable for computer-aided machining than metals, titanium or to restore the external and internal orbital anatomy to its original shape
ceramics. In addition, the demand for metal-free bone repair has and to repair or reposition trapped or injured soft tissue. The breaking of
increased due to steadily increasing allergic reactions (10–15% of the this fine bone structure involves pathogenic, functional and aesthetic
population) (Osman and Swain, 2015). issues among others (Sigron et al., 2021), and the objectives of orbital
PEEK has become a major competitor in the manufacture of bone floor reconstruction are to free the incarcerated soft tissue and cover loss
prostheses. It is used in skull reconstruction (Spece et al., 2020; Chen of substance with an implant to restore a correct anatomy and bring the
et al., 2022), dental implants (Chen et al., 2020), orthopedic implants orbital space back to its pre-traumatic volume (Touil et al., 2020). The
(Evans et al., 2015; Brockett et al., 2016) and implants for orbital wall present study has thus focused on the manufacture via FDM of implants
reconstruction. There is currently a growing interest in producing made of pure PEEK 450 G for orbital wall reconstruction.
PEEK-based implants via additive manufacturing (Arif et al., 2018) such The choice of non-metallic materials such as PEEK is better than the

* Corresponding author. Laboratoire Mécanique Appliquée et Ingénierie (LR-MAI)-ENIT, Tunisie.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Timoumi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2022.105534
Received 10 July 2022; Received in revised form 13 October 2022; Accepted 16 October 2022
Available online 18 October 2022
1751-6161/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Timoumi et al. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 136 (2022) 105534

use of implants made of metallic materials. Research comparing non- 2.2. Materials and equipment
metallic materials like fiberglass with metals like titanium has been
clinically approved (Kuusisto et al., 2018; Vallittu, 2017). Several A Spiderbot 4.0 HT 3D printer from the French manufacturer
studies have shown the importance of using PEEK and its grades in Qualup® was used to create the PEEK specimens. This printer was
orbital wall reconstruction. According to Chepurnyi and al. (Chepurnyi compatible with high-performance materials such as PEEK or PEI. The
et al., 2020), PEEK has a superior clinical efficacy compared with 3D printer was adjusted using the Cura 3.6 software, in expert mode,
pre-folded plates in orbital reconstruction, especially in size and shape allowing us to generate a g-code file, that was opened on a Repetier-
restoration of a damaged eye socket. Gu and al (Gu et al., 2020). Server, giving control of the printer. The PEEK filament used for the
demonstrated the biocompatibility of PEEK for the treatment of orbital 3D printing was supplied by 3D4Makers who manufacture the filaments
bone defects, and Goodson and al (Goodson et al., 2012). proved the from the PEEK grade Victrex 450 g. The pattern used in this study was a
possibility of using PEEK in orbital reconstruction on a human patient. zigzag with an infill rate of 96%. The bed temperature was 160 ◦ C and
Sharma and al (Sharma et al., 2021). showed the feasibility of the radiant temperature was 420 ◦ C.
custom-manufactured orbital mesh implants with 3D printing and
evaluated several options using Multi-Criteria Decision Making 2.3. Design of experiments (DOE)
(MCDM), based on the Finite Element (FE) approach. Such printed
personalized implants were greatly affected by the process parameters, The Taguchi approach can help determine optimal parameters for
and for this reason the parameters should be properly selected to parts printed with FDM thanks to an experimental design that optimizes
enhance the characteristics of the final product. the number of trials to be performed. Here, we studied two extreme
In view of this, the current work aimed to investigate the 3D FDM values for each parameter, which gave a design of experiments with 3
printing of PEEK with maximum tensile mechanical properties to obtain factors and 2 levels: high and low. The choice of levels was made based
an ideal setting for personalized orbital implants. Special importance on the article by Timoumi and al. (Mohamed et al., 2021). Table 1
was attributed to studying the effect of the eye’s weight on the PEEK presents the factors studied and the values corresponding to the two
orbital wall implant according to variable thicknesses and patterns using levels. This design of experiments, translated by a Taguchi table, led us
the finite element method. Fig. 1 shows the broken orbital bone struc­ to carry out 4 experiments. Table 2 lists the different tests performed
ture and the orbital implant to be used in the reconstruction. depending on the configuration.

2. Materials and methods 2.4. Tensile testing

2.1. Experimental-numerical simulation dialog procedure Tensile tests were carried out on a 5-kN tensile testing machine; the
specimens were printed according to ISO 527 type 5A and dried in a
The workflow of the study comprised six steps and is summarized in drying box at 150 ◦ C for 5 h before testing at a displacement speed of 1
Fig. 2 as a graphical flow chart. mm/min. An extensometer was also used during the tests. To validate
the repeatability of the results, each test was carried out on 5 specimens
1) 3D manufacturing of test specimens using the Taguchi design and an average was calculated.
experiment.
2) Determination of the mechanical characteristics of the test samples. 2.5. Finite element analysis
3) Optimization via the Minitab software and the Taguchi approach.
4) Modeling and studying of patient-specific orbital implants using the To investigate the mechanical properties such as deformation and
finite element method and Abaqus software. von Mises stress of the designed PEEK implants, we used the finite
5) Comparison between models and choosing the recommended element calculation software ABAQUS (Lang et al., 2003). To design the
implant. simulation with clinically relevant forces, a vertical force of 0.3 N was
6) Manufacturing and use. considered, corresponding to the weight of an average eye of 30 g. The
loading force was evenly distributed in a circular area with a radius of 2

Fig. 1. Reconstruction of the broken orbital bone structure.

2
M. Timoumi et al. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 136 (2022) 105534

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of experimental-numerical simulation dialog procedure.

modulus for the 3D-printed PEEK. These results were obtained from the
Table 1
tensile tests carried out on the specimens.
Selected parameters and their levels.
To analyze the variation of the most important parameters as a
Factors Low level High level function of tensile properties, Fig. 4 shows the impact of each parameter
Nozzle temperature 420 C
◦
450◦C on Young’s modulus (Fig. 4a) and the tensile strength (Fig. 4b). Then,
Printing speed 20 mm/s 30 mm/s Table 4 presents the classification of the input parameters, given by the
Layer thickness 0.1 mm 0.2 mm
Minitab 16 analysis.
According to Fig. 4, increasing the temperature of the nozzle from
low to high had a positive effect on both Young’s modulus and the
Table 2 tensile strength. On the other hand, increasing the layer thickness or the
Design of experiments according to the L4 orthogonal array of the Taguchi printing speed from a low level to a high level resulted in lower values.
approach. As can be seen in Table 4, the nozzle temperature was the parameter
Trial Nozzle temperature Printing speed (mm/ Layer thickness that most influenced the parameters in question. In the case of Young’s
No. (◦ C) s) (mm) modulus, a variation of the nozzle temperature from low to high led to
1 420 20 0.1 an increase from 2.27 GPa to 2.57 GPa which was an improvement of
2 420 30 0.2 13.21%. Thanks to the Minitab 16 software and the Taguchi approach
3 450 20 0.2 we could optimize Young’s modulus by adjusting the nozzle tempera­
4 450 30 0.1
ture to its high level, and the layer thickness and printing speed to their
low levels. The obtained value was 2.67 GPa which represented 66.75%
mm, located in the middle of the implant transversely and 10 mm from of the value given by Victrex.
the orbital edge of the implant (Guillaume et al., 2020; Falk et al., 2015). A similar result was seen for the tensile strength, where we obtained
Two screw fixation points with a standard diameter of 1.5 mm were an average increase of 31.47% when changing the nozzle temperature
designed to provide fixation between the implant and the orbital bone. from low to high. The second most influential parameter was the layer
All degrees of freedom (DOF) of the nodes around the screw head were thickness with an average decrease in tensile strength of 8.77%. The last
constrained. The main objective of this step was to design the implants setting was the printing speed, which resulted in an average reduction of
according to four models. Fig. 3 represents these four models with their 2.74%. Thanks to the Minitab 16 software and the Taguchi approach, we
dimensions. could optimize the tensile strength by adjusting the nozzle temperature
The first was a solid model without a pattern, and the second, third to its high level, and the layer thickness and printing speed to their low
and fourth models had a honeycomb filling pattern and filling rates of levels. The obtained value was 54.975 MPa which represented 56.09%
70%, 55% and 40%, respectively. For each model, three thickness values of the value given by Victrex.
of 0.3 mm, 0.5 mm and 0.7 mm were chosen for the design.
3.2. Orbital implant model design
3. Results and discussion
By comparing the observed mechanical characteristics of PEEK with
3.1. Tensile properties and optimization with the Taguchi approach
those of polypropylene, which is one of the materials used for the
manufacture of reconstruction implants, it can be seen that Young’s
Table 3 shows the tensile strengths as well as values of Young’s
modulus and the tensile strength of PEEK (2.67 GPa and 54.975 MPa,

3
M. Timoumi et al. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 136 (2022) 105534

Fig. 3. Dimensions of the models: a) solid model, b) honeycomb 70%, c) honeycomb 55%, d)honeycomb 40%.

Mises stress and deformation values in the PEEK orbital mesh implants
Table 3
obtained from all models at thicknesses of 0.3, 0.5 and 0.7 mm.
Tensile properties of the PEEK parts.
Trial no. Tensile strength (MPa) Young’s modulus (GPa) 3.2.1. Stress intensity patterns in the PEEK orbital mesh implants
1 42.5 ± 1.2 2.4 ± 0.15 Fig. 6 illustrates the propagation of the von Mises stress in the
2 37 ± 0.9 2.2 ± 0.07 implant at thicknesses of 0.3 mm, 0.5 mm and 0.7 mm and for the
3 53.7 ± 1.1 2.6 ± 0.12
different models. It can be noticed that the model without a pattern (fill
4 50.7 ± 1.2 2.5 ± 0.10
rate 100%) and with a thickness of 0.7 mm, revealed the minimum von
Mises stress value, whereas the honeycomb pattern (fill rate 40%) and
respectively) were higher than those of polypropylene (respectively 1.6 thickness of 0.3 mm showed the maximum von Mises stress value.
GPa and 27 MPa) (Seen et al., 2021; Alkhalil and Otero, 2016). It could Therefore, for each model, the thinnest implant profile resulted in the
thus be concluded that PEEK printed with the optimal values found can highest stress value.
be used in the manufacture of an orbital implant. The von Mises criterion is generally written as follows:
Fig. 5 illustrates the typical result of the propagation of stress in­
σvonMises = {[(σ1 - σ2)2 + (σ2 - σ3)2 + (σ1 - σ3)2 ] / 2}1/2 (1)
tensity and deformation in the PEEK orbital mesh implants in different
models for thicknesses of 0.7 mm, and Table 5 lists the maximum von The equivalent von Mises stress must be less than the tensile stress to

Fig. 4. Main effects of the parameters on a) Young’s modulus and b) the tensile strength.

4
M. Timoumi et al. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 136 (2022) 105534

Table 4 accepted. For the honeycomb patterns with fill rate 70% and fill rate
Classification of the input parameters on the tensile strength given by the 55%, implants with thicknesses of 0.5 mm and 0.7 mm were accepted,
Minitab 16 analysis. and for the honeycomb pattern with fill rate 40%, only the implant with
Level Nozzle Printing speed Layer thickness a thickness of 0.7 mm was accepted. To minimize the weight of the
temperature (◦ C) (mm/s) (mm) implant, and thereby also the price of PEEM material used, the honey­
1 Young’s 2.27 2.45 2.49 comb pattern with a fill rate of 40% and a thickness of 0.7 mm was
2 modulus 2.57 2.39 2.35 recommended. The maximum von Mises stress reached for this model
Delta 0.3 0.06 0.14 did not exceed 7.186 MPa and it was found that the stress distribution
1 Tensile 39.72 46.61 48.08
peaked at the center of the distributed force for the different models
2 strength 52.22 45.33 43.86
Delta 12.50 1.28 4.22 (Fig. 5).
Rank 1 3 2
3.2.2. Deformation in the PEEK orbital mesh implants
The result of finite element analysis of deformation in the PEEK
remain in the elastic domain of the material. implants caused by the weight of the eye for the different models are
σvonMises < σe/ s (2) shown in Fig. 7. As can be seen, for the models with the same filling rate
and the same type of pattern, the thinnest implant profiles presented the
Where s is the safety coefficient and σe is tensile strength. Generally, highest deformations.
during manufacturing of implants, the safety factor is equivalent to 5 We can notice that the model with a fill rate of 100% and a thickness
(Parthasarathy et al., 2011). In our case, for the model to be accepted, of 0.7 mm exhibited the minimum value of deformation, i.e.,0.0022 mm,
the von Mises stress value had to be lower than 10,995 MPa. where the honeycomb pattern model (40% fill rate) with a thickness of
For the model without a pattern (fill rate 100%), all thicknesses were 0.3 mm had the highest deformation value at 0.0575 mm. These results

Fig. 5. a) The solid model (density 100%), b) the honeycomb model (density 70%), c) the honey comb model (density 55%), d)the honeycomb model (density 40%).
Propagation of stress intensity in a’) the solid model (density 100%), b’) the honeycomb model (density 70%), c’) the honey comb model (density 55%), d’) the
honeycomb model (density 40%), for thicknesses of 0.7 mm.
Propagation of deformation in a’‘) the solid model (density 100%), b’‘) the honeycomb model (density 70%), c’‘) the honey comb model (density 55%), d’‘) the
honeycomb model (density 40%) for thicknesses of 0.7 mm.

5
M. Timoumi et al. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 136 (2022) 105534

Table 5 1. The tensile properties of the PEEK specimens fabricated by a FDM 3D

Maximum values of the von Mises stress and deformation in PEEK orbital mesh printer were studied experimentally as a function of three process
implants. parameters. A Taguchi fractional factorial design was utilized to set
Implant model Thickness Maximum von Mises Deformation the experiments. The results showed that the optimum parameters
(mm) stress (MPa) (mm) were a nozzle temperature of 450 ◦ C, a layer thickness of 0.1 mm and
Without pattern (fill 0.3 0.8434 19.3*10− 3 a printing speed of 20 mm/s. The temperature of the nozzle was the
rate 100%) 0.5 0.3344 5.45*10− 3 most influential parameter.
0.7 0.1852 2.2*10− 3 2. The optimal combination of the process parameters led to a tensile
Honeycomb pattern 0.3 15.19 26*10− 3
strength of 55 MPa and Young’s modulus of 2.67 GPa which repre­
(fill rate 70%) 0.5 6.691 7.01*10− 3
0.7 4.263 2.92*10− 3 sented 66.75% of the value given by Victrex.
Honeycomb pattern 0.3 18.66 41.9*10− 3 3. The finite element analysis, the evaluation of different models of
(fill rate 55%) 0.5 8.221 10.98*10− 3 PEEK orbital implants with optimized properties at three thicknesses
0.7 5.237 4.575*10− 3 (0.3 mm, 0.5 mm and 0.7 mm) and with 4 patterns pointed at the
Honeycomb pattern 0.3 25.6 57.5*10− 3
(fill rate 40%) 0.5 11,279 15*10− 3
honeycomb pattern (fill rate 40%) with a thickness of 0.7 mm being
0.7 7186 6.27*10− 3 the recommended model to obtain low-cost 3D printing of implants
for orbital wall reconstruction.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Mohamed Timoumi: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original

draft. Najoua Barhoumi: Writing – review & editing, Visualization,
Validation, Methodology. Amna Znaidi: Validation, Methodology,
Formal analysis. Abderrahim Maazouz: Validation, Supervision,
Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Khalid Lamnawar:
Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Methodology, Formal analysis.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

Data availability
Fig. 6. The von Mises stress as a function of thickness for the implant models.
No data was used for the research described in the article.

References

Alkhalil, Moustafa, Otero, J. Joshi, 2016. Orbital reconstruction with a partially

absorbable mesh (monofilament polypropylene fibre and monofilament
poliglecaprone-25): our experience with 34 patients. Saudi Journal of
Ophthalmology. ISSN: 1319-4534 30 (3), 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sjopt.2016.07.002.
Arif, M.F., Kumar, S., Varadarajan, K.M., Cantwell, W.J., 2018. Performance of
biocompatible PEEK processed by fused deposition additive manufacturing. Mater.
Des. ISSN: 0264-1275 146, 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2018.03.015.
Banoriya, Deepen, Purohit, Rajesh, Dwivedi, R.K., 2017. Advanced application of
polymer based biomaterials. Mater. Today Proc. ISSN: 2214-7853 4 (2), 3534–3541.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.02.244. Part A.
Brockett, C.L., Carbone, S., Abdelgaied, A., Fisher, J., Jennings, L.M., 2016. Influence of
contact pressure, cross-shear and counterface material on the wear of PEEK and CFR-
PEEK for orthopaedic applications. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. ISSN: 1751-6161
63, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.06.005.
Chen, Xi, Ma, Ruiyang, Min, Jie, Li, Zhi, Yu, Ping, Yu, Haiyang, 2020. Effect of PEEK and
PTFE coatings in fatigue performance of dental implant retaining screw joint: an in
vitro study. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. ISSN: 1751-6161 103, 103530. https://
Fig. 7. The deformation as a function of thickness for the implant models. doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103530.
Chen, L., Chen, F., Gatea, S., Ou, H., 2022. PEEK based cranial reconstruction using
thermal assisted incremental sheet forming. Proc. IME B J. Eng. Manufact. 236 (6-7),
were confirmed in Fig. 5 and the deformation reached its maximum at 997–1004. https://doi:10.1177/09544054211045904.
the center of the distributed force. Chepurnyi, Yurii, Chernogorskyi, Denis, Kopchak, Andrey, Petrenko, Oksana, 2020.
Clinical efficacy of peek patient-specific implants in orbital reconstruction. Journal
of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research. ISSN: 2212-4268 10 (2), 49–53. https://
4. Conclusion doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2020.01.006.
Evans, Nathan T., Torstrick, F.Brennan, Lee, Christopher S.D., Dupont, Kenneth M.,
Safranski, David L., Allen Chang, W., Macedo, Annie E., Lin, Angela S.P.,
This paper describes the mechanical behavior of 3D-printed PEEK
Boothby, Jennifer M., Whittingslow, Daniel C., Carson, Robert A., Guldberg, Robert
orbital wall implants with optimized mechanical properties and their E., 2015. Ken Gall,High-strength, surface-porous polyether-ether-ketone for load-
finite elements analysis. The following conclusions were drawn from the bearing orthopedic implants. Acta Biomater. ISSN: 1742-7061 13, 159–167. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2014.11.030.
results of the experimental-numerical simulation dialog procedure:
Falk, Birkenfeld, Behrens, Eleonore, Kern, Matthias, Gassling, Volker, Wiltfang, Jörg,
2015. Mechanical properties of collagen membranes: are they sufficient for orbital

6
M. Timoumi et al. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 136 (2022) 105534

floor reconstructions? J. Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. ISSN: 1010-5182 43 (2), Panayotov, I.V., Orti, V., Cuisinier, F., et al., 2016. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for
260–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2014.11.020. medical applications. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 27, 118. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Goodson, M.L., Farr, D., Keith, D., Banks, R.J., 2012. Use of two-piece s10856-016-5731-4.
polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants in orbitozygomatic reconstruction. Br. J. Oral Paris, Henri, Mokhtarian, Hossein, Coatanéa, Eric, Museau, Matthieu, Flores
Maxillofac. Surg. 50 (3), 268–269. https://doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.04.077. Ituarte, Inigo, 2016. Comparative environmental impacts of additive and subtractive
Gu, R.D., Xiao, F., Wang, L., Sun, K.J., Chen, L.L., 2020. Biocompatibility of manufacturing technologies. CIRP Annals. ISSN: 0007-8506 65 (1), 29–32. https://
polyetheretherketone for the treatment of orbital bone defects. Int. J. Ophthalmol. doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2016.04.03.
13 (5), 725–730. Published 2020 May 18. https://doi:10.18240/ijo.2020.05.05. Parthasarathy, Jayanthi, Starly, Binil, Raman, Shivakumar, 2011. A design for the
Guillaume, Olivier, Geven, Mike A., Varjas, Viktor, Varga, Peter, Gehweiler, Dominic, additive manufacture of functionally graded porous structures with tailored
Stadelmann, Vincent A., Smidt, Tanja, Zeiter, Stephan, Sprecher, Christoph, mechanical properties for biomedical applications. J. Manuf. Process. ISSN: 1526-
Ruud, R., Bos, M., Grijpma, Dirk W., Alini, Mauro, Yuan, Huipin, Richards, Geoff R., 6125 13 (2), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2011.01.004.
2020. Tingting Tang, ling Qin, Lai Yuxiao, Peng Jiang, David Eglin,Orbital floor Rinaldi, Marianna, Ghidini, Tommaso, Cecchini, Federico, Brandao, Ana,
repair using patient specific osteoinductive implant made by stereolithography. Nanni, Francesca, 2018. Additive layer manufacturing of poly (ether ether ketone)
Biomaterials. ISSN: 0142-9612 233, 119721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. via FDM. Compos. B Eng. ISSN: 13598368 145, 162–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biomaterials.2019.119721. compositesb.2018.03.029.
Kang, M.S., Choi, B.C., Kim, Y.H., Woo, S.H., Jeong, J.H., Seul, J.H., 1998. An analysis of Seen, S., Young, S., Lang, S.S., Lim, T.-C., Amrith, S., Sundar, G., 2021. Orbital implants
1,210 facial bone fractures in 835 patients: 5 year survey. J Korean Soc Plast in orbital fracture reconstruction: a ten-year series. Craniomaxillofacial Trauma
Reconstr Surg 25 (4), 598–606. Reconstr. 14 (1), 56–63. https://doi:10.1177/1943387520939032.
Kurtz, Steven M., 2012. Chapter 1 - an Overview of PEEK Biomaterials,PEEK Sharma, N., Welker, D., Aghlmandi, S., Maintz, M., Zeilhofer, H.-F., Honigmann, P.,
Biomaterials Handbook. William Andrew Publishing, ISBN 9781437744637, Seifert, T., Thieringer, F.M., 2021. A multi-criteria assessment strategy for 3D
pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4377-4463-7.10001-6. printed porous polyetheretherketone (PEEK) patient-specific implants for orbital
Kuusisto, N., Huumonen, S., Kotiaho, A., Haapea, M., Rekola, J., Vallittu, P., 2018. wall reconstruction. J. Clin. Med. 10, 3563. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163563.
Intensity of artefacts in cone beam CT examinations caused by titanium and glass Sigron, G.R., Barba, M., Chammartin, F., Msallem, B., Berg, B.-I., Thieringer, F.M., 2021.
fiber-reinforced composite implants. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 20170471. https:// Functional and cosmetic outcome after reconstruction of isolated, unilateral orbital
doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20170471. floor fractures (Blow-Out fractures) with and without the support of 3D-printed
Lang, Lisa A., Kang, Byungsik, Wang, Rui-Feng, Lang, Brien R., 2003. Finite element orbital anatomical models. J. Clin. Med. 10, 3509. https://doi.org/10.3390/
analysis to determine implant preload. J. Prosthet. Dent. ISSN: 0022-3913 90 (Issue jcm10163509.
6), 539–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.09.012. Spece, H., Yu, T., Law, A.W., Marcolongo, M., Kurtz, S.M., 2020. 3D printed porous PEEK
Milovanović, A., Milošević, M., Mladenović, G., Likozar, B., Čolić, K., Mitrović, N., 2019. created via fused filament fabrication for osteoconductive orthopaedic surfaces.
Experimental dimensional accuracy analysis of reformer prototype model produced J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. ISSN: 1751-6161 109, 103850. https://doi.org/
by FDM and SLA 3D printing technology. In: Mitrovic, N., Milosevic, M., 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103850.
Mladenovic, G. (Eds.), Experimental and Numerical Investigations in Materials Touil, H., Mabrouk, H., Msellmi, F., Bouzaiene, M., 2020. Reconstruction des fractures du
Science and Engineering. CNNTech 2018, CNNTech 2018. Lecture Notes in Networks plancher orbitaire par mèche de Polypropylène Reconstruction of orbital floor
and Systems 54. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99620-2_7. Springer, Cham. fractures with Polypropylen mesh. LA TUNISIE MEDICALE 98, 01.
Mohamed, T., Barhoumi, N., Lamnawar, K., Maazouz, A., Znaidi, A., 2021. Optimization Vallittu, P.K., 2017. Bioactive glass-containing cranial implants: an overview. J. Mater.
of fused deposition modeling process parameters using the Taguchi method to Sci. 52 (15), 8772–8784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-017-0888-x.
improve the tensile properties of 3D-printed polyether ether ketone. Proc. IME J. Yan, Mengxue, Tian, Xiaoyong, Peng, Gang, Li, Dichen, Zhang, Xiaoyu, 2018. High
Mater. Des. Appl. 235 (11), 2565–2573. https://doi:10.1177/14644207211017572. temperature rheological behavior and sintering kinetics of CF/PEEK
Osman, R.B., Swain, M.V., 2015. A critical review of dental implant materials with an compositesduring selective laser sintering. Compos. Sci. Technol. ISSN: 0266-3538
emphasis on titanium versus zirconia. Materials 8, 932–958. https://doi.org/ 165, 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2018.06.023.
10.3390/ma8030932.

View publication stats