251 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27135643)
1. Evaluating Osseointegration Into a Deeply Porous Titanium Scaffold: A Biomechanical Comparison With PEEK and Allograft.
Guyer RD; Abitbol JJ; Ohnmeiss DD; Yao C
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2016 Oct; 41(19):E1146-E1150. PubMed ID: 27135643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of porous orthopaedic implant material and structure on load sharing with simulated bone ingrowth: A finite element analysis comparing titanium and PEEK.
Carpenter RD; Klosterhoff BS; Torstrick FB; Foley KT; Burkus JK; Lee CSD; Gall K; Guldberg RE; Safranski DL
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2018 Apr; 80():68-76. PubMed ID: 29414477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effects of Surface Topography and Chemistry on Polyether-Ether-Ketone (PEEK) and Titanium Osseointegration.
Torstrick FB; Lin ASP; Safranski DL; Potter D; Sulchek T; Lee CSD; Gall K; Guldberg RE
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2020 Apr; 45(8):E417-E424. PubMed ID: 31703050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. In Vivo Osseointegration Performance of Titanium Dioxide Coating Modified Polyetheretherketone Using Arc Ion Plating for Spinal Implant Application.
Tsou HK; Chi MH; Hung YW; Chung CJ; He JL
Biomed Res Int; 2015; 2015():328943. PubMed ID: 26504800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Porous PEEK improves the bone-implant interface compared to plasma-sprayed titanium coating on PEEK.
Torstrick FB; Lin ASP; Potter D; Safranski DL; Sulchek TA; Gall K; Guldberg RE
Biomaterials; 2018 Dec; 185():106-116. PubMed ID: 30236838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Biological evaluation and finite-element modeling of porous poly(para-phenylene) for orthopaedic implants.
Ahn H; Patel RR; Hoyt AJ; Lin ASP; Torstrick FB; Guldberg RE; Frick CP; Carpenter RD; Yakacki CM; Willett NJ
Acta Biomater; 2018 May; 72():352-361. PubMed ID: 29563069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Interfacial shear strength of bioactive-coated carbon fiber reinforced polyetheretherketone after in vivo implantation.
Nakahara I; Takao M; Goto T; Ohtsuki C; Hibino S; Sugano N
J Orthop Res; 2012 Oct; 30(10):1618-25. PubMed ID: 22467537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Choice of Spinal Interbody Fusion Cage Material and Design Influences Subsidence and Osseointegration Performance.
Fogel G; Martin N; Williams GM; Unger J; Yee-Yanagishita C; Pelletier M; Walsh W; Peng Y; Jekir M
World Neurosurg; 2022 Jun; 162():e626-e634. PubMed ID: 35346883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 3D-printed titanium cages without bone graft outperform PEEK cages with autograft in an animal model.
Laratta JL; Vivace BJ; López-Peña M; Guzón FM; Gonzalez-Cantalpeidra A; Jorge-Mora A; Villar-Liste RM; Pino-Lopez L; Lukyanchuk A; Taghizadeh EA; Pino-Minguez J
Spine J; 2022 Jun; 22(6):1016-1027. PubMed ID: 34906741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Impaction durability of porous polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) and titanium-coated PEEK interbody fusion devices.
Torstrick FB; Klosterhoff BS; Westerlund LE; Foley KT; Gochuico J; Lee CSD; Gall K; Safranski DL
Spine J; 2018 May; 18(5):857-865. PubMed ID: 29366985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Bony ingrowth potential of 3D-printed porous titanium alloy: a direct comparison of interbody cage materials in an in vivo ovine lumbar fusion model.
McGilvray KC; Easley J; Seim HB; Regan D; Berven SH; Hsu WK; Mroz TE; Puttlitz CM
Spine J; 2018 Jul; 18(7):1250-1260. PubMed ID: 29496624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Do Surface Porosity and Pore Size Influence Mechanical Properties and Cellular Response to PEEK?
Torstrick FB; Evans NT; Stevens HY; Gall K; Guldberg RE
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2016 Nov; 474(11):2373-2383. PubMed ID: 27154533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Osseointegration of 3D porous and solid Ti-6Al-4V implants - Narrow gap push-out testing and experimental setup considerations.
Frosch S; Nüsse V; Frosch KH; Lehmann W; Buchhorn G
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2021 Mar; 115():104282. PubMed ID: 33348214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Porous titanium-6 aluminum-4 vanadium cage has better osseointegration and less micromotion than a poly-ether-ether-ketone cage in sheep vertebral fusion.
Wu SH; Li Y; Zhang YQ; Li XK; Yuan CF; Hao YL; Zhang ZY; Guo Z
Artif Organs; 2013 Dec; 37(12):E191-201. PubMed ID: 24147953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. PEEK-Halo effect in interbody fusion.
Phan K; Hogan JA; Assem Y; Mobbs RJ
J Clin Neurosci; 2016 Feb; 24():138-40. PubMed ID: 26474500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A comparative study of three biomaterials in an ovine bone defect model.
Cheng BC; Jaffee S; Averick S; Swink I; Horvath S; Zhukauskas R
Spine J; 2020 Mar; 20(3):457-464. PubMed ID: 31626979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The in vivo response to a novel Ti coating compared with polyether ether ketone: evaluation of the periphery and inner surfaces of an implant.
Walsh WR; Pelletier MH; Christou C; He J; Vizesi F; Boden SD
Spine J; 2018 Jul; 18(7):1231-1240. PubMed ID: 29496625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of 3D-printed titanium-alloy, standard titanium-alloy, and PEEK interbody spacers in an ovine model.
Van Horn MR; Beard R; Wang W; Cunningham BW; Mullinix KP; Allall M; Bucklen BS
Spine J; 2021 Dec; 21(12):2097-2103. PubMed ID: 34029756
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Biomechanical and histomorphometric evaluation of skin integration on titanium and PEEK implants with different surface treatments.
Kjellin P; Danielsson K; Håkansson J; Agrenius K; Andersson T; Stenlund P
J Mater Sci Mater Med; 2022 Sep; 33(10):68. PubMed ID: 36178551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A Novel Nanostructured Surface on Titanium Implants Increases Osseointegration in a Sheep Model.
Jones CF; Quarrington RD; Tsangari H; Starczak Y; Mulaibrahimovic A; Burzava ALS; Christou C; Barker AJ; Morel J; Bright R; Barker D; Brown T; Vasilev K; Anderson PH
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2022 Nov; 480(11):2232-2250. PubMed ID: 36001022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
