Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
3D-printed PEEK vs titanium mesh for orbital bone repair in cadavers
By Oteiza JZ et al.·2026·Clinic of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery·View original on Europe PMC →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Surgical Performance of 3D-Printed Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Patient-Specific Implants and Titanium Mesh in Clinically Matched Orbital Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Study.
Plain-English summary
This study looked at how well 3D-printed implants made from a material called polyetheretherketone (PEEK) work for fixing eye socket injuries compared to traditional titanium mesh. Fourteen surgeons practiced on nine cadaver heads, using titanium mesh for simpler fractures and PEEK implants for more complex ones. The results showed that the PEEK implants were quicker to use and fit better, with all of them rated as stable, while the titanium mesh had a slightly lower stability rating. Most surgeons liked the idea of choosing materials based on the specific situation. Overall, the 3D-printed PEEK implants showed clear benefits in handling and stability for complicated repairs, while titanium mesh was easier to use for simpler cases.
Abstract
Orbital reconstruction following trauma remains challenging due to complex three-dimensional (3D) anatomy and limited surgical access. While pre-fabricated titanium mesh is standard, it requires extensive intraoperative manipulation and produces imaging artifacts. The 3D-printed polyetheretherketone (PEEK) patient-specific implants (PSIs) offer potential advantages; however, limited data exists for the acceptance of PEEK PSIs by surgeons compared to other established techniques. Fourteen surgeons performed simulated orbital reconstructions on nine cadaveric heads comparing titanium mesh and the 3D-printed PEEK PSIs. Titanium mesh was used for Class II orbital floor fractures, while the 3D-printed PEEK PSIs (native and radiopaque formulations) were used for Class IV defects. Surgeons were blinded to the PEEK formulation type. Outcomes included operative efficiency, handling characteristics, fit quality, and mechanical stability using validated 5-point Likert scales and objective timing. The 3D-printed PEEK PSIs demonstrated faster procedure times (9.5 ± 5.3 vs. 11.2 ± 5.1 min) and superior fit quality (2.00 ± 1.04 vs. 2.18 ± 0.60) and mechanical stability (1.67 ± 0.49 vs. 1.91 ± 0.54), with 100% rated stable versus 91% for the titanium mesh. Surgeons could not distinguish between the native and radiopaque PEEK formulations. Most surgeons (64.3%) preferred situation-dependent material selection. The 3D-printed PEEK PSIs demonstrated advantages in handling, fit quality, and mechanical stability for complex defects, while the titanium mesh showed a lower learning curve for simple reconstructions. Radiopaque enhancement expands PEEK's clinical utility without compromising handling.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on Europe PMC: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41892802