As the choice of additive manufacturing (AM) technologies is becoming wider with reliable processes and a wider range of materials, the selection of the right technology to fabricate a certain product is becoming increasingly difficult from a technical and cost perspective. In this study polyether-ether-ketone cranial implants were manufactured by two AM techniques: powder bed fusion (PBF) and fused filament fabrication (FFF) and their dimensional accuracy, compression performance, and drop tower impact behavior were evaluated and compared. The results showed that both types of specimens differed from the original computer-aided design; although the origin of the deviation was different, the PBF samples were slightly inaccurate owing to the printing process where the accuracy of the FFF samples was influenced by postprocessing and removal of the scaffolds. The cranial implants fabricated using the FFF method absorbed more energy during the compression and impact tests in comparison with the PBF process. The failure mechanisms revealed that FFF samples have a higher ability to deform and a more consistent failure mechanisms, with the damage localized around the puncture head region. The brittle nature of the PBF samples, a feature observed with other polymers as well, led to complete failure of the cranial implants into several pieces.
Keywords: PEEK; additive manufacturing; cranioplasty; fused filament fabrication; powder bed fusion.
© Liu et al. 2023; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.