Evaluation of 3D printed PEEK and other 3D printed biocompatible materials as healthcare devices


  • Sandeep Shetty
  • Nandish B. T.
  • Vivek Amin
  • Pooja Harish
  • Stanly Selva Kumar
  • Shahira




3D printing, Additive manufacturing, Universal testing machine, PEEK polymer, 316L Stainless steel


Introduction and Aim: Additive manufacturing has sought a widespread attention and higher rate of development which can also be modeled by processing of the data acquired by medical Computer Tomography scan. The object is built on a built plate of the printer in layers to form a final required model. Thus, a patient-specific model can be created from imaging data set. Materials available for such printing are elastomers, polymers, metals, or ceramics. The polymer, Polyether ether ketone (PEEK) has been used in health care applications, such as medical devices, and implants due to its high strength, biocompatibility, and light weight. Stainless steel (316L) is commonly used due to its strength, bio-tolerance, corrosion resistance and its formability. The aim of this study was to compare the mechanical strength and biocompatibility of medical grade PEEK and stainless steel.


Material and Methods: The test sample of PEEK was prepared using unreinforced PEEK (450G-Victrex Plc., Lancashire, UK) at the Prototyping Lab with a 3D-Printer - INTAMSYS - FUNMAT HT. Samples of stainless steel was printed using the iFusion SF1 Metal 3D Printer using Powder Bed Fusion (PBF) technology. The mechanical tests such as compressive, impact, and tensile tests were performed using an electromechanical universal testing machine (UTM) model- Zwick/Roell Z020 with a 20kN load cell. Biocompatibility tests were done using L929 cells to assess the cytotoxicity of the dental materials.


Results: The tensile strength of PEEK polymer was 70+1.6 and the impact strength of PEEK polymer was 289 J/m.


Conclusion: The tensile strength of stainless steel was higher compared to that of PEEK polymer, and the impact strength of PEEK polymer higher compared to stainless steel. Thus, it can be concluded that both biomaterial such as 316L stainless steel and PEEK are non-toxic to fibroblast.

Author Biographies

Sandeep Shetty

Department of Orthodontics, Yenepoya Dental College, Yenepoya (Deemed to be University), Deralakatte, Mangalore, 575 018, Karnataka, India

Nandish B. T.

Department of Dental Materials, Yenepoya Dental College, Yenepoya (Deemed to be University), Derlakatte – Mangalore, Karnataka, India.

Vivek Amin

Department of Orthodontics, Yenepoya Dental College, Yenepoya (Deemed to be University), Deralakatte, Mangalore, 575 018, Karnataka, India

Pooja Harish

Department of Orthodontics, Yenepoya Dental College, Yenepoya (Deemed to be University), Derlakatte – Mangalore, Karnataka, India.

Stanly Selva Kumar

Private Practitioner, MDS-Orthodontics, Mangalore, Karnataka, India


Private Practitioner, MDS-Oral Medicine and Radiology, Mangalore, Karnataka, India


Ngo, T.D., Kashani, A., Imbalzano, G., Nguyen, K.T., Hui, D. Additive manufacturing (3D printing): A review of materials, methods, applications, and challenges. Compos. Part B-Eng.2018; 143: 172-196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012

Bhat, V.S., Nandish, B.T., K. Jayaprakash. Science of Dental Materials with Clinical Applications, 3rd ed., CBS Publishers and Distributors, 2019; P:230.

Tofail, S.A., Koumoulos, E.P., Bandyopadhyay, A., Bose, S., O’Donoghue, L., Charitidis, C. Additive manufacturing: scientific and technological challenges, market uptake and opportunities. Materials today. 2018;21(1):22-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2017.07.001

Ding, D., Pan, Z., Cuiuri, D., Li, H., van Duin, S. Advanced design for additive manufacturing: 3D slicing and 2D path planning. New trends in 3d printing. 2016:1-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5772/63042

Shakiba, M., Ghomi, E.R., Khosravi, F., Jouybar, S., Bigham, A., Zare, M., et al., Nylon-A material introduction and overview for biomedical applications. Polym Adv Technol. 2021;32:1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pat.5372

Sidhom M, Zaghloul H, Mosleh IE, Eldwakhly E. Effect of Different CAD/CAM Milling, and 3D Printing Digital Fabrication Techniques on the Accuracy of PMMA Working Models and Vertical Marginal Fit of PMMA Provisional Dental Prosthesis: An In Vitro Study. Polymers. 2022;14(7):1285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14071285

Sumarta, N.P., Danudiningrat, C.P., Rachmat, E.A., Soesilawati, P. Cytotoxicity difference of 316L stainless steel and titanium reconstruction plate. Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi). 2011;44(1):7-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v44.i1.p7-11

Ma, H., Suonan, A., Zhou, J., Yuan, Q., Liu, L., Zhao, X., et al., PEEK (Polyether-ether-ketone) and its composite materials in orthopedic implantation. Arabian Journal of Chemistry. 2021;14(3):102977. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2020.102977

Shetty, S., Nandish, B.T., Amin, V., Jayaprakash, K., Kumar, G.S., Khan, F., et al., 3D printed Polyether ether ketone (PEEK), Polyamide (PA) and its evaluation of mechanical properties and its uses in healthcare applications. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 2022; 1224 (1): p. 012005. IOP Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1224/1/012005

McNamara, A., Turner, R.M. Potential of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and carbon-fibre-reinforced PEEK in medical applications. J Mater Sci Lett; 1987; 6:188-190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01728981

Chen, X.H., Lu, J., Lu, L., Lu, K. Tensile properties of a nanocrystalline 316L austenitic stainless steel. Scripta materialia. 2005;52(10):1039-1044. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2005.01.023

D7264/D7264M.ASTM standard test method for flexural properties of polymer matrix composite materials. Annual book of ASTM standards 2007; 7:1-1.

Prithivirajan, S., Nyahale, M.B., Naik, G.M., Narendranath, S., Prabhu, A., Rekha, P.D. Bio-corrosion impacts on mechanical integrity of ZM21 Mg for orthopaedic implant application processed by equal channel angular pressing. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine. 2021;32(6):1-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-021-06535-5

Mosmann, T. Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. Journal of immunological methods. 1983;65(1-2):55-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1759(83)90303-4

D'Souza, J.N., Prabhu, A., Nagaraja, G.K., Navada, M., Kouser, S., Manasa, D.J. Unravelling the human triple negative breast cancer suppressive activity of biocompatible zinc oxide nanostructures influenced by Vateria indica (L.) fruit phytochemicals. Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2021; 122:111887. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2021.111887

Williams, D.F. On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials. 2008;29(20):2941-2953. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.04.023

Desai, S., Bidanda, B., Bartolo, P. Metallic and ceramic biomaterials: current and future developments. InBio-Materials and Prototyping Applications in Medicine 2008 (pp. 1-14). Springer, Boston, MA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-47683-4_1




How to Cite

Shetty S, B. T. N, Amin V, Harish P, Selva Kumar S, Shahira. Evaluation of 3D printed PEEK and other 3D printed biocompatible materials as healthcare devices. Biomedicine [Internet]. 2022 Nov. 14 [cited 2022 Nov. 27];42(5):956-60. Available from: https://biomedicineonline.org/home/article/view/1959



Original Research Articles

Plum Analytics