Is Polyetheretherketone an Effective Alloplastic Material in Comparison to Titanium in Calvarial Reconstruction

Introduction and Aim: Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium (Ti) cranioplasty implants ideal outcomes are good esthetics, long-term stability, and protection of the fragile brain tissue. However, it is unclear whether PEEK implants can offer an equal alternative to Ti implants. This work aimed to critically review papers and case series published on both Ti and PEEK Cranioplasty regarding complications, clinical outcomes, ease of use, esthetics, manufacture and availability, cost and time-saving factors, postoperative quality of life (QOL), as well as their suitability for the fronto-orbito region reconstruction. Methods: PubMed database was sourced for published literature in the period 2007 to the end of 2023; a further manual search for articles was carried out on the reference lists of each paper. Results: A total of 48980 papers were found during the initial search, but only 33 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 6023 cranial implants, with 3879 being Ti and 1205 PEEK. Titanium was the material of choice in over 64.4% of cases; however, Ti has been in application for many years compared to PEEK. Out of the 33 papers, there was 27 retrospective cohort/analysis/case series and reviews: 1 meta-analysis, 2 systematic reviews and 3 randomized control trials. Four articles commented on the QOL, 15 on esthetics, 7 discussed cost and time-saving without measurable variables, and 7 articles looked explicitly at the complex fronto-orbito region, of which 49% were primary 1-stage surgical reconstructions, 54% were reconstructed with PEEK and 7% Ti (CAD/CAM). Conclusion: There is no absolute consensus for the preference of either material, however, in the fronto-orbito region, PEEK is the material of choice for ease of use, esthetics, and time-saving. However, there are no long-term studies on PEEK cranioplasty, and fewer in comparison with Ti implants. Further research is required in this field. No reliable or measurable data was found to determine the QOL, esthetics, cost, or time-saving elements.