PEEK has been widely used in orthopaedic surgery; however, the ability to utilize PEEK for advanced fabrication methods, such as 3D printing and tailored porosity, remain challenging. We present a promising new orthopaedic biomaterial, Poly(para-phenylene) (PPP), which is a novel class of aromatic polymers with higher strength and stiffness than polyetheretherketone (PEEK). PPP has exceptional mechanical strength and stiffness due to its repeating aromatic rings that provide strong anti-rotational biaryl bonds. Furthermore, PPP has an amorphous structure making it relatively easier to manufacture (via molding or solvent-casting techniques) into different geometries with and without porosity. This ability to manufacture different architectures and use different processes while maintaining mechanical properties makes PPP a very promising potential orthopaedic biomaterial which may allow for closer matching of mechanical properties between the host bone tissue while also allowing for enhanced osseointegration. In this manuscript, we look at the potential of porous and solid PPP in comparison to PEEK. We measured the mechanical properties of PPP and PEEK scaffolds, tested these scaffolds in vitro for osteocompatibility with MC3T3 cells, and then tested the osseointegration and subsequent functional integration in vivo in a metaphyseal drill hole model in rat tibia. We found that PPP permits cell adhesion, growth, and mineralization in vitro. In vivo it was found that porous PPP significantly enhanced mineralization into the construct and increased the mechanical strength required to push out the scaffold in comparison to PEEK. This is the first study to investigate the performance of PPP as an orthopaedic biomaterial in vivo. PPP is an attractive material for orthopaedic implants due to the ease of manufacturing and superior mechanical strength.

No abstract

Poly(para-phenylene) (PPP) exhibits exceptional mechanical strength, stiffness, toughness, and chemical inertness, although it is not currently used in any biomedical applications. The purpose of this study is to serve as a preliminary investigation into the potential of PPP as a biomaterial in orthopedic load-bearing applications. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) analysis confirmed a polymer structure composed of an aromatic backbone and side groups. Tensile PPP specimens along with samples from several other polymers often used for orthopedic applications were elongated to failure after being soaked in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) for 1 h, 1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, and more than 1 year. Results showed that PBS absorption of the PPP plateaued at 1 week at values of ∼0.7 wt % and remained within one standard deviation when soaked for over 1 year. PBS absorption did not affect elastic modulus (5.0 GPa), yield strength (141 MPa), fracture strength (120 MPa) and strain-to-failure (17%) more than one standard deviation. Zero-to-tension fatigue testing established an endurance limit of approximately 35 MPa, which was relatively insensitive to frequency (1-10 Hz). Eagle's minimum essential medium (MEM) elution assay with fibroblasts confirmed that the PPP was noncytotoxic. Relative to other polymers used for load-bearing biomedical applications, PPP displays promising mechanical properties that remain stable in aqueous solution. Lastly, prototype PPP and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) bone plates were manufactured and tested, with the PPP plate showing a 38% higher maximum tensile load before failure.

No abstract

Yield strength 5 92.0 6 4.6 MPa; Fracture strength 5 77.2 6 5.1 MPa; Modulus (E) 5 3104 6 163 MPa; Fracture strain 5 11.1 6 3.5%. 2. On page 3125, the line saying "PEEK experienced plateauing at 0.47 wt.% after 453 days" needs to be altered to: "PEEK experienced a plateau followed by a slight increase to 0.85 wt.% after 276 days". 3. On page 3125, the line saying "However, PEEK had a significant increase in strain to failure values." needs to be removed as that is not the case. 4. On page 3128, the line saying PEEK is approaching 0.5 wt.% at 453 days is incorrect, but rather 0.85 wt.% after 276 days. 5. In Figure 3, the caption should read the break in abscissa is between 40 and 200 days.The journal regrets any confusion caused by these errors. 860V C 2014 WILEY PERIODICALS, INC.