journal article·2021-12Open access

Additively manufactured titanium scaffolds and osteointegration - meta-analyses and moderator-analyses of in vivo biomechanical testing

Simon Cleemput, Stijn E. F. Huys, Robbert Cleymaet, Wilfried Cools, Maurice Y. Mommaerts

Biomaterials Research· Volume 25· Issue 1

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Maximizing osteointegration potential of three-dimensionally-printed porous titanium (3DPPT) is an ongoing focus in biomaterial research. Many strategies are proposed and tested but there is no weighted comparison of results. Methods We systematically searched Pubmed and Embase to obtain two pools of 3DPPT studies that performed mechanical implant-removal testing in animal models and whose characteristics were sufficiently similar to compare the outcomes in meta-analyses (MAs). We expanded these MAs to multivariable meta-regressions (moderator analysis) to verify whether statistical models including reported scaffold features (e.g., “pore-size”, “porosity”, “type of unit cell”) or post-printing treatments (e.g., surface treatments, adding agents) could explain the observed differences in treatment effects (expressed as shear strength of bone-titanium interface). Results “Animal type” (species of animal in which the 3DPPT was implanted) and “type of post-treatment” (treatment performed after 3D printing) were moderators providing statistically significant models for differences in mechanical removal strength. An interaction model with covariables “pore-size” and “porosity” in a rabbit subgroup analysis (the most reported animal model) was also significant. Impact of other moderators (including “time” and “location of implant”) was not statistically significant. Discussion/conclusion Our findings suggest a stronger effect from porosity in a rat than in a sheep model. Additionally, adding a calcium-containing layer does not improve removal strength but the other post-treatments do. Our results provide overview and new insights, but little narrowing of existing value ranges. Consequent reporting of 3DPPT characteristics, standardized comparison, and expression of porosity in terms of surface roughness could help tackle these existing dilemmas. Graphical abstract
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Cellular and Composite Structures · Titanium Alloys Microstructure and Properties

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (38)

Show source-provided references
1. Diamanti MV, Del Curto B, Pedeferri M. Anodic oxidation of titanium: from technical aspects to biomedical applications. J Appl Biomater Biomech. 2011;9(1):55–69. https://doi.org/10.5301/JABB.2011.7429.10.5301/JABB.2011.7429 ↗
2. Chen L, Guo X, Li Y, Li T. Finite element analysis for interfacial stress and fatigue behaviors of biomimetic titanium implant under static and dynamic loading conditions. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2010;35(7):662–72. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-7347.2010.07.004.10.3969/j.issn.1672-7347.2010.07.004 ↗
3. Murr LE, Gaytan SM, Medina F, Lopez H, Martinez E, Machado BI, et al. Next-generation biomedical implants using additive manufacturing of complex, cellular and functional mesh arrays. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2010;368(1917):1999–2032. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0010.10.1098/rsta.2010.0010 ↗
4. Vesterinen HM, Sena ES, Egan KJ, Hirst TC, Churolov L, Currie GL, et al. Meta-analysis of data from animal studies: a practical guide. J Neurosci Methods. 2014;221:92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.09.010.10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.09.010 ↗
5. Stubinger S, Mosch I, Robotti P, Sidler M, Klein K, Ferguson SJ, et al. Histological and biomechanical analysis of porous additive manufactured implants made by direct metal laser sintering: a pilot study in sheep. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013;101(7):1154–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.32925.10.1002/jbm.b.32925 ↗
6. Hara D, Nakashima Y, Sato T, Hirata M, Kanazawa M, Kohno Y, et al. Bone bonding strength of diamond-structured porous titanium-alloy implants manufactured using the electron beam-melting technique. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016;59:1047–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2015.11.025.10.1016/j.msec.2015.11.025 ↗
7. Bandyopadhyay A, Shivaram A, Tarafder S, Sahasrabudhe H, Banerjee D, Bose S. In vivo response of laser processed porous titanium implants for load-bearing implants. Ann Biomed Eng. 2017;45(1):249–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-016-1673-8.10.1007/s10439-016-1673-8 ↗
8. Cheng A, Cohen DJ, Kahn A, Clohessy RM, Sahingur K, Newton JB, et al. Laser sintered porous Ti-6Al-4V implants stimulate vertical bone growth. Ann Biomed Eng. 2017;45(8):2025–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-017-1831-7.10.1007/s10439-017-1831-7 ↗
9. MacBarb RF, Lindsey DP, Woods SA, Lalor PA, Gundanna MI, Yerby SA. Fortifying the bone-implant Interface part 2: an in vivo evaluation of 3D-printed and TPS-coated triangular implants. Int J Spine Surg. 2017;11(3):16. https://doi.org/10.14444/4016.10.14444/4016 ↗
10. Ran Q, Yang W, Hu Y, Shen X, Yu Y, Xiang Y, et al. Osteogenesis of 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V implants with different pore sizes. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;84:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.04.010.10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.04.010 ↗
11. Wang H, Su K, Su L, Liang P, Ji P, Wang C. The effect of 3D-printed Ti6Al4V scaffolds with various macropore structures on osteointegration and osteogenesis: a biomechanical evaluation. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;88:488–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.08.049.10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.08.049 ↗
12. Chang JZ, Tsai PI, Kuo MY, Sun JS, Chen SY, Shen HH. Augmentation of DMLS BiomimeticDental Implants with Weight-Bearing Strut to Balance of Biologic and Mechanical Demands: From Bench to Animal. Materials (Basel). 2019;12(1):164.10.3390/ma12010164 ↗
13. Huang YM, Huang CC, Tsai PI, Yang KY, Huang SI, Shen HH, et al. Three-Dimensional PrintedPorous Titanium Screw with Bioactive Surface Modification for Bone-Tendon Healing: A Rabbit Animal Model. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(10):3628.10.3390/ijms21103628 ↗
14. Tikhilov R, Shubnyakov I, Denisov A, Konev V, Gofman I, Starchik D, et al. The experimental study of tissue integration into porous titanium implants. Hip Int. 2020;23:1120700020943481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700020943481.10.1177/1120700020943481 ↗
15. Amin Yavari S, van der Stok J, Chai YC, Wauthle R, Tahmasebi Birgani Z, Habibovic P, et al. Bone regeneration performance of surface-treated porous titanium. Biomaterials. 2014;35(24):6172–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.04.054.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.04.054 ↗
16. Garcia-Gareta E, Hua J, Blunn GW. Osseointegration of acellular and cellularized osteoconductive scaffolds: is tissue engineering using mesenchymal stem cells necessary for implant fixation? J Biomed Mater Res A. 2015;103(3):1067–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.35256.10.1002/jbm.a.35256 ↗
17. Stubinger S, Nuss K, Burki A, Mosch I, le Sidler M, Meikle ST, et al. Osseointegration of titanium implants functionalised with phosphoserine-tethered poly (epsilon-lysine) dendrons: a comparative study with traditional surface treatments in sheep. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2015;26(2):87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-015-5433-3.10.1007/s10856-015-5433-3 ↗
18. Cohen DJ, Cheng A, Kahn A, Aviram M, Whitehead AJ, Hyzy SL, et al. Novel Osteogenic Ti-6Al-4V device for restoration of dental function in patients with large bone deficiencies: design, Development And Implementation. Sci Rep. 2016;6:20493.10.1038/srep20493 ↗
19. Liu H, Li W, Liu C, Tan J, Wang H, Hai B, et al. Incorporating simvastatin/poloxamer 407 hydrogel into 3D-printed porous Ti6Al4V scaffolds for the promotion of angiogenesis, osseointegration and bone ingrowth. Biofabrication. 2016;8(4):045012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/8/4/045012.10.1088/1758-5090/8/4/045012 ↗
20. Xiu P, Jia Z, Lv J, Yin C, Cheng Y, Zhang K, et al. Tailored surface treatment of 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V by Microarc oxidation for enhanced Osseointegration via optimized bone in-growth patterns and interlocked bone/implant Interface. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2016;8(28):17964–75. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.6b05893.10.1021/acsami.6b05893 ↗
21. Xu JY, Chen XS, Zhang CY, Liu Y, Wang J, Deng FL. Improved bioactivity of selective laser melting titanium: surface modification with micro−/nano-textured hierarchical topography and bone regeneration performance evaluation. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016;68:229–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.05.096.10.1016/j.msec.2016.05.096 ↗
22. Tanzer M, Chuang PJ, Ngo CG, Song L, TenHuisen KS. Characterization of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous 3D printed biomaterial: an animal study. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B(6_Supple_B):62–7.10.1302/0301-620X.101B6.BJJ-2018-1472.R1 ↗
23. Teng FY, Tai IC, Ho ML, Wang JW, Weng LW, Wang YJ, et al. Controlled release of BMP-2 from titanium with electrodeposition modification enhancing critical size bone formation. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2019;105:109879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2019.109879.10.1016/j.msec.2019.109879 ↗
24. Bai H, Zhao Y, Wang C, Wang Z, Wang J, Liu H, et al. Enhanced osseointegration of three-dimensional supramolecular bioactive interface through osteoporotic microenvironment regulation. Theranostics. 2020;10(11):4779–94. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.43736.10.7150/thno.43736 ↗
25. Li L, Shi J, Zhang K, Yang L, Yu F, Zhu L, et al. Early osteointegration evaluation of porous Ti6Al4V scaffolds designed based on triply periodic minimal surface models. J Orthop Translat. 2019;19:94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2019.03.003.10.1016/j.jot.2019.03.003 ↗
26. Barba D, Alabort E, Reed RC. Synthetic bone: design by additive manufacturing. Acta Biomater. 2019;97:637–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2019.07.049.10.1016/j.actbio.2019.07.049 ↗
27. Murr LE. Open-cellular metal implant design and fabrication for biomechanical compatibility with bone using electron beam melting. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017;76:164–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.02.019.10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.02.019 ↗
28. Tan XP, Tan YJ, Chow CSL, Tor SB, Yeong WY. Metallic powder-bed based 3D printing of cellular scaffolds for orthopaedic implants: a state-of-the-art review on manufacturing, topological design, mechanical properties and biocompatibility. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2017;76:1328–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2017.02.094.10.1016/j.msec.2017.02.094 ↗
29. Martinez-Marquez D, Delmar Y, Sun S, Stewart RA. Exploring Macroporosity of Additively Manufactured Titanium Metamaterials for Bone Regeneration with Quality by Design: A Systematic Literature Review. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(21):4794.10.3390/ma13214794 ↗
30. Taniguchi N, Fujibayashi S, Takemoto M, Sasaki K, Otsuki B, Nakamura T, et al. Effect of pore size on bone ingrowth into porous titanium implants fabricated by additive manufacturing: an in vivo experiment. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016;59:690–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2015.10.069.10.1016/j.msec.2015.10.069 ↗
31. Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1763–8. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864.10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864 ↗
32. Liebschner MAK. Biomechanical considerations of animal models used in tissue engineering of bone. Biomaterials. 2004;25(9):1697–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00515-5.10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00515-5 ↗
33. Walsh WR, Pelletier MH, Wang T, Lovric V, Morberg P, Mobbs RJ. Does implantation site influence bone ingrowth into 3D-printed porous implants? Spine J. 2019;19(11):1885–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2019.06.020.10.1016/j.spinee.2019.06.020 ↗
34. Thomas KA, Kay JF, Cook SD, Jarcho M. The effect of surface macrotexture and hydroxylapatite coating on the mechanical strengths and histologic profiles of titanium implant materials. J Biomed Mater Res. 1987;21(12):1395–414. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820211205.10.1002/jbm.820211205 ↗
35. Soballe K. Hydroxyapatite ceramic coating for bone implant fixation. Mechanical and histological studies in dogs. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1993;255:1–58. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453679309155636.10.3109/17453679309155636 ↗
36. Lugovskoy A, Lugovskoy S. Production of hydroxyapatite layers on the plasma electrolytically oxidized surface of titanium alloys. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2014;43:527–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2014.07.030.10.1016/j.msec.2014.07.030 ↗
37. Hanawa T. Titanium-tissue Interface reaction and its control with surface treatment. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:170. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00170.10.3389/fbioe.2019.00170 ↗
38. Huedo-Medina TB, Sanchez-Meca J, Marin-Martinez F, Botella J. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychol Methods. 2006;11(2):193–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193.10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193 ↗