Interface contact behavior of 3D printed porous surfaces
Source abstract
Abstract
When a 3D printed implant integrates a thin surface lattice, the geometry of this porous region controls the bone-implant interface, affecting both short-term implant stability and long-term osseointegration. In intervertebral devices, for example, high expulsion resistance and propensity to subside are imperative in reducing implant migration and loss of disc height. Moreover, the shear strength of the porous-solid metal interface is critical to prevent metal-to-metal decohesion prior to and after osseointegration. While lap shear and subsidence tests are both governed by ASTM standards, expulsion testing is not standardized, and the tradeoffs in the potential implant failure modes have not been thoroughly investigated to find an optimal porosity satisfactory in all three performance tests. In this multi parameter study, we perform a series of experiments on 3D printed porous gyroid surfaces to understand the interplays and inherent tradeoffs between porosity, expulsion resistance, propensity to subside, and porous layer strength. Porosity was the only significant factor affecting expulsion, subsidence, and ultimate shear strength. As porosity increased, expulsion resistance of the surface porosity sample increased, resulting in samples that are harder to push out of a constrained bony cavity; however, shear strength and propensity to subside both decreased, resulting in a weaker metal-to-metal porous layer adhesion and equivalent penetration into the Sawbone surface at lower forces. Within the error of the measurements, the 6 × 6 × 6 0.75 mm wall thickness gyroid (65% modeled porosity and 62% measured porosity) design presented the best overall performance characteristics.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (50)
Show source-provided references
1. Comparison analysis of titanium alloy Ti6Al4V produced by metallurgical and 3D printing method10.1063/1.5091886 ↗
2. Additive manufacturing: a review on 3 D printing of metals and study of residual stress, buckling load capacity of strut members10.1016/j.matpr.2019.12.012 ↗
3. Finite element analysis of orthopedic hip implant with functionally graded bioinspired lattice structures
4. Selective laser melting of Ti6Al4V alloy for biomedical applications: temperature monitoring and microstructural evolution10.1016/j.jallcom.2013.08.183 ↗
5. Microstructural porosity in additive manufacturing: the formation and detection of pores in metal parts fabricated by powder bed fusion10.1002/amp2.10021 ↗
6. Selective Laser Melting: a regular unit cell approach for the manufacture of porous, titanium, bone in-growth constructs, suitable for orthopedic applications
7. Additive manufacturing of Ti6Al4V alloy: a review10.1016/j.matdes.2018.107552 ↗
8. Osseointegration of retrieved 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants10.1302/2046-3758.107.BJR-2020-0462.R1 ↗
9. Graded gyroid structures for load bearing orthopedic implants
10. Biomorphic porous Ti6Al4V gyroid scaffolds for bone implant applications fabricated by selective laser melting10.1007/s40964-021-00210-5 ↗
11. Effect of stress state on the mechanical behavior of 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V scaffolds produced by laser powder bed fusion10.1016/j.mseb.2022.116013 ↗
12. 3D-Printed Ti6Al4V scaffolds with graded triply periodic minimal surface structure for bone tissue engineering10.1007/s11665-021-05580-z ↗
13. A biomechanical evaluation on Cubic, Octet, and TPMS gyroid Ti6Al4V lattice structures fabricated by selective laser melting and the effects of their debris on human osteoblast-like cells10.1016/j.bioadv.2022.212829 ↗
14. Effects of 3D printed surface topography and normal force on implant expulsion10.1016/j.jmbbm.2022.105208 ↗
15. F. Javed, H. B. Ahmed, R. Crespi, and G. E. Romanos, "Role of primary stability for successful osseointegration of dental implants: factors of influence and evaluation," (in eng), Interv Med Appl Sci, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 162-167, Dec 2013, doi: 10.1556/imas.5.2013.4.3.10.1556/imas.5.2013.4.3 ↗
16. Relationship between primary/mechanical and secondary/biological implant stability," (in eng)10.11607/jomi.19suppl.g1 ↗
17. Surface roughness of dental implant and osseointegration10.1007/s12663-020-01437-5 ↗
18. Local deformation behavior of surface porous polyether-ether-ketone10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.09.006 ↗
19. Impaction durability of porous polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) and titanium-coated PEEK interbody fusion devices10.1016/j.spinee.2018.01.003 ↗
20. Bony ingrowth potential of 3D-printed porous titanium alloy: a direct comparison of interbody cage materials in an in vivo ovine lumbar fusion model10.1016/j.spinee.2018.02.018 ↗
21. High-strength, porous additively manufactured implants with optimized mechanical osseointegration10.1016/j.biomaterials.2021.121206 ↗
22. Frictional and bone ingrowth properties of engineered surface topographies produced by electron beam technology10.1007/s00402-010-1218-9 ↗
23. 2018
24. Standard test methods for intervertebral body fusion devices, ASTM Internationa, July 14,2022 2022.
25. Incidence and impact of implant subsidence after stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion
26. Traumatic expulsion of T4 vertebral body into the spinal canal treated by vertebrectomy and spine shortening10.1097/BRS.0000000000000328 ↗
27. J. S. Wilkinson, M. A. Riesberry, S. A. Mann, and D. R. Fourney, "Traumatic lateral expulsion of the L-4 vertebral body from the spinal column: case report," (in English), J Neurosurg: Spine SPI, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 508-512, 01 Apr. 2011 2011, doi: 10.3171/2010.11.Spine091028.10.3171/2010.11.SPINE091028 ↗
28. Mechanical testing of a novel hydrogel nucleus replacement implant10.1016/j.spinee.2004.12.004 ↗
29. Expulsion testing of an anterior cervical intervertebral fusion cage: factors affecting pull out resistance
30. "Nubac disc arthroplasty: preclinical studies and preliminary safety and efficacy evaluations," (in eng)10.1016/S1935-9810(07)70045-2 ↗
31. Subsidence of titanium Mesh cage: a study based on 300 cases
32. L. Marchi, N. Abdala, L. Oliveira, R. Amaral, E. Coutinho, and L. Pimenta, "Radiographic and clinical evaluation of cage subsidence after stand-alone lateral interbody fusion: clinical article," (in English), J Neurosurg: Spine SPI, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 110-118, 01 Jul. 2013 2013, doi: 10.3171/2013.4.SPINE12319.10.3171/2013.4.SPINE12319 ↗
33. Does lumbar interbody cage size influence subsidence? A biomechanical study10.1097/BRS.0000000000003194 ↗
34. Factors affecting sagittal malalignment due to cage subsidence in standalone cage assisted anterior cervical fusion10.1007/s00586-006-0284-8 ↗
35. Risk factors for postoperative subsidence of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: the significance of the preoperative cervical alignment10.1097/BRS.0000000000000400 ↗
36. The effect of cervical interbody cage morphology, material composition, and substrate density on cage subsidence
37. In vitro degradation and mechanical integrity of Mg–Zn–Ca alloy coated with Ca-deficient hydroxyapatite by the pulse electrodeposition process10.1016/j.actbio.2009.12.009 ↗
38. Hydrothermal deposition of high strength calcium phosphate coatings on magnesium alloy for biomedical applications10.1016/j.surfcoat.2018.09.016 ↗
39. Mussel-inspired multifunctional hydrogel coating for prevention of infections and enhanced osteogenesis10.1021/acsami.6b16779 ↗
40. Mechanical properties and structure of Ti-6Al-4V with graded-porosity coatings applied by plasma spraying for use in orthopaedic implants
41. Shear testing and failure modelling of calcium phosphate coated AZ31 magnesium alloys for orthopaedic applications10.1016/j.surfcoat.2021.127944 ↗
42. 2018
43. Numerical evaluation of a porous tibial-knee implant using gyroid structure," (in eng)10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2005-1116 ↗
44. G. R. M. Matos, "Surface roughness of dental implant and osseointegration," (in eng), J Maxillofac Oral Surg, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1-4, Mar 2021, doi: 10.1007/s12663-020-01437-5.10.1007/s12663-020-01437-5 ↗
45. S. Parithimarkalaignan and T. V. Padmanabhan, "Osseointegration: an update," (in eng), J Indian Prosthodont Soc, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 2-6, Mar 2013, doi: 10.1007/s13191-013-0252-z.10.1007/s13191-013-0252-z ↗
46. A. Barfeie, J. Wilson, and J. Rees, "Implant surface characteristics and their effect on osseointegration," Br Dent J, vol. 218, no. 5, p. E9, 2015/03/01 2015, doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.171.10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.171 ↗
47. L. Damiati et al., "Impact of surface topography and coating on osteogenesis and bacterial attachment on titanium implants," (in eng), J Tissue Eng, vol. 9, p. 2041731418790694, Jan-Dec 2018, doi: 10.1177/2041731418790694.10.1177/2041731418790694 ↗
48. Compressive anisotropy of sheet and strut based porous Ti–6Al–4V scaffolds10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.104243 ↗
49. Fatigue behavior of As-built selective laser melted titanium scaffolds with sheet-based gyroid microarchitecture for bone tissue engineering10.1016/j.actbio.2019.05.046 ↗
50. Effect of cut-off, evaluation length, and measurement area in profile and areal surface texture characterization of as-built metal additive manufactured components10.3390/app11115089 ↗