غرسات الجمجمة: تيتانيوم أم PEEK؟ مقارنة عملية للجراح

Autologous bone remains the first consideration in cranioplasty, but resorption, infection and donor-site morbidity mean many cranial defects end up reconstructed with a custom implant. The two dominant materials — titanium alloy and PEEK — shape the operation, the follow-up and the long-term result.

Titanium: thin, strong, osseointegrating

Laser-printed titanium allows exceptionally thin walls (0.4–0.6 mm) with a perforated mesh — decisive in the temporal region where a thick implant is palpable. Titanium osseointegrates at the fixation interface, and the perforated structure permits fibrovascular ingrowth that reduces seroma. Trade-offs: thermal conductivity and some CT/MRI artefact.

PEEK: radiolucent and bone-like in stiffness

PEEK is radiolucent — post-operative imaging is essentially artefact-free, a genuine advantage for tumour surveillance. Its elastic modulus sits closer to cortical bone. It must however be considerably thicker (2–4 mm) to reach equivalent strength, and it does not osseointegrate.

A practical selection framework

• Lateral/temporal defects or thin soft tissue → titanium
• Tumour patients needing clean imaging → PEEK
• Large frontoparietal defects → discuss thickness preference
• Both quotes arrive together in one design package

The CranioTech approach

We design both titanium and PEEK from the same segmentation, so the material decision can be made at design review rather than at referral. Send the CT through the case form and we will prepare the comparison for your specific defect.