Are These PEEK Implants ?

[randomvanish]

check this out :

Bone resorption under plastic chin implants - PubMed

Bone resorption under plastic chin implants

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

it's from 1969

 

[randomvanish]

what implant you have ? @BradAniston

 

[BradAniston]

what implant you have ? @BradAniston

Body implant due to bone deformity.
1 calve implant
1 chest implant (since 6 month)
1 humerus implant

 

[BradAniston]

Body implant due to bone deformity.
1 calve implant
1 chest implant (since 6 month)
1 humerus implant

Oh and they're screwless custom silicone implant.

 

[randomvanish]

Oh and they're screwless custom silicone implant.

are you larping ?

 

[BradAniston]

are you larping ?

Why would I lie ?

 

[randomvanish]

Why would I lie ?

i dunno, trolling maybe ? show evidence.

 

[BradAniston]

i dunno, trolling maybe ? show evidence.

the scar is still red

 

[randomvanish]

@Saiyan

 

[BradAniston]

@randomvanish so the malar implant are less likely to cause bone resorption ? Compared to chin, forehead and jaw angle implant

 

[randomvanish]

@randomvanish so the malar implant are less likely to cause bone resorption ? Compared to chin, forehead and jaw angle implant

i think so but not %100 sure. i'll keep researching about it.

 

[Sergio-OMS]

@Sergio-OMS @RealSurgerymax

Yes, Paul Coceancig uses PEEK

 

[randomvanish]

Yes, Paul Coceancig uses PEEK

why ? are there any research about peek that proves it's better than silicone / medpor ?

I'm asking these because past 50 years, silicone is the most used implant material i guess, because all papers i've seen about silicone variations.

 

[RealSurgerymax]

@Sergio-OMS @RealSurgerymax

Both materials will cause an implant impression. Actual Never-Ending erosion is very rare. PEEK is more structural.

Yes these are PEEK implants shown

 

[Sergio-OMS]

why ? are there any research about peek that proves it's better than silicone / medpor ?

I'm asking these because past 50 years, silicone is the most used implant material i guess, because all papers i've seen about silicone variations.

I don’t know if one can 3D print silicon, or fix it without risking to partially tear it.

PEEK or titanium sounds more logical to me

 

[scalpel]

@Win200 @scalpel

Implant settling is a normal, passive phenomena - not an active pathological process that continues unabated. The 2 mm figure people cite from the study is the MAXIMUM erosion that was observed, not the typical.

Material makes no significant difference in terms of aesthetic outcome or resorption. Another user here wrote a really good comment breakdown of this, but I can't remember what their username was. Started with a C I believe.

Dr Andreichevs' black and white filtered photo is intentionally misleading. What you are likely seeing there is removal of the bony overgrowth that has occurred over the implant...not active resorption into the bone. The guy is trying to build up a patient base by marketing himself as some kind of anti-Eppley.

 

[greycel]

Both materials will cause an implant impression. Actual Never-Ending erosion is very rare. PEEK is more structural.

Yes these are PEEK implants shown

I thought you said that inframalar PEEK implants, with screws, would cause minimal initial absorption. Will we have to deal with absorption for the rest of our lives?
Wouldn’t that just make us have less bone than if we didn’t get the implant?