口腔医学研究

口腔医学研究 ›› 2019, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (4): 405-408.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2019.04.024

• 口腔生物力学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

3种不同工艺制备聚醚醚酮假体的生物力学性能研究

郭芳1, 黄硕1, 朱勇1, 薛洋2, 胡敏3, 高悦榕1, 刘昌奎1*   

  1. 1. 西安医学院口腔医学院 陕西 西安 710021;
    2. 空军军医大学口腔医学院 陕西 西安 710032;
    3. 中国人民解放军总医院 北京 100853
  • 收稿日期:2018-10-18 出版日期:2019-04-28 发布日期:2019-04-23
  • 通讯作者: 刘昌奎,E-mail:dentistlck@126.com
  • 作者简介:郭芳(1984~ ),女,陕西宝鸡人,硕士,讲师,主要从事口腔颌面外科颞下颌关节疾病的研究。
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(编号:81470726);陕西省教育厅自然科学专项基金(编号:18JK0672)

Biomechanical Properties of Polyetheretherketone Prostheses Prepared by Three Different Processes

GUO Fang1, HUANG Shuo1, ZHU Yong1, XUE Yang2, HU Min3, GAO Yue-rong1, LIU Chang-kui1*   

  1. 1. College of Stomatology, Xi'an Medical University, Xi'an 710021, China;
    2. College of Stomatology, the Air Force Military Medical University, Xi'an 710032, China;
    3. General Hospital of PLA,Beijing 100853,China
  • Received:2018-10-18 Online:2019-04-28 Published:2019-04-23

PDF (PC)

202

摘要： 目的: 检测3种不同工艺制备聚醚醚酮标准件的生物力学性能,评估3D打印技术制备聚醚醚酮人工假体的优势及临床应用前景。方法: 采用等材(注塑成型)、减材(机械加工)、增材(3D打印)3种工艺分别制作生物力学检测所需标准件,并对其进行单轴拉伸、单轴压缩、三点弯曲实验检测其生物力学性能,应用单因素方差分析LSD检验进行组间均数对比分析。结果: 3D打印试件的抗拉能力与机械加工、注塑成型相比无显著性差异;抗弯能力略低于机械加工,与注塑成型相比无显著性差异;抗压能力与机械加工相比无显著性差异,明显优于注塑成型。结论: 3D打印技术制备的聚醚醚酮假体其力学性能较佳,且能更好的满足个性化的临床需求。

关键词: 3D打印, 注塑成型, 机械加工, 力学性能测试, 人工假体

Abstract: Objective: By testing the biomechanical properties of three different processes PEEK standard parts, to evaluate the advantages and clinical application prospects of 3D printing PEEK prosthesis. Methods: Standard parts for biomechanical testing were manufactured by three processes: isomer (injection molding), reduction (machining) and augmentation (3D printing). Uniaxial tensile test, uniaxial compression test, and three-point bending test were carried out to test the biomechanical properties of the standard parts. LSD test was used to compare the mean values among groups. Results: There was no significant difference in tensile strength between 3D printing specimens and mechanical processing and injection molding. The bending strength of 3D printing was slightly lower than that of mechanical processing, but not significant different from that of injection molding. Conclusion: The polyetheretherketone prosthesis prepared by 3D printing technology has better mechanical properties and can better meet the individualized clinical needs.

Key words: 3D printing, Injection molding, Machining, Mechanical properties testing, Artificial prosthesis