A critical review on bone plates: state of the art and future directions
Source abstract
Abstract
The article provides an in-depth overview of the mechanical, chemical, and biological properties of engineering materials used for orthopedic bone plates, along with their designs and fabrication methods. This review addresses the benefits and drawbacks of various materials that have been utilized as bone plates for the treatment of fractures and bone abnormalities. Due to their excellent mechanical properties, metallic bone plates have traditionally been employed for bone fracture fixation. However, the mismatch in mechanical properties and high density of metallic bone plates can lead to stress shielding and non-union, often requiring revision surgeries. These challenges are highlighted in the review, which then explores the potential of polymeric plates to overcome such issues. Nevertheless, the insufficient mechanical performance of polymeric bone plates often necessitates the development of composite bone plates that are patient-specific, biocompatible, and easily tailorable. Emerging research initiatives in this area are discussed. The article further elaborates on various fabrication processes and their impact on the surface properties of bone plates. Both conventional machining processes for internal fixation devices and 3D printing methods for fabricating patient-specific, customized bone plates are reviewed. The paper concludes by evaluating current advancements and anticipated developments related to bone plate technology.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty · Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Titanium Alloys Microstructure and Properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Engineered Biomedical Materials Research and Innovation Centre (EnBioMatRIC), Manipal University Jaipur
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.xrrt.2025.03.00610.1016/j.xrrt.2025.03.006 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.ijso.2022.10054010.1016/j.ijso.2022.100540 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.jmst.2019.07.02410.1016/j.jmst.2019.07.024 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.jcms.2007.08.01110.1016/j.jcms.2007.08.011 ↗
5. 10.1002/jab.77001010910.1002/jab.770010109 ↗
6. 10.1016/B978-0-08-102643-4.00010-010.1016/B978-0-08-102643-4.00010-0 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.bprint.2021.e0014810.1016/j.bprint.2021.e00148 ↗
8. 10.1080/09205063.2022.212714310.1080/09205063.2022.2127143 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.11057610.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110576 ↗
10. 10.5772/5591610.5772/55916 ↗
11. 10.1089/ten.teb.2011.047510.1089/ten.teb.2011.0475 ↗
12. 10.7759/cureus.1770510.7759/cureus.17705 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.engreg.2020.05.00310.1016/j.engreg.2020.05.003 ↗
14. 10.1097/BOT.000000000000106310.1097/BOT.0000000000001063 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.jse.2013.07.04010.1016/j.jse.2013.07.040 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.jcot.2024.10282610.1016/j.jcot.2024.102826 ↗
17. 10.3390/ma1008088410.3390/ma10080884 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.actbio.2009.09.01010.1016/j.actbio.2009.09.010 ↗
19. Al-Tamimi AA et al. Topology optimised metallic bone plates produced by electron beam melting: a mechanical and biological study. Int J Adv Manuf Tech. 2019;104:195–210.10.1007/s00170-019-03866-0 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.07.01710.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.07.017 ↗
21. 10.1016/s0020-1383(00)80026-110.1016/s0020-1383(00)80026-1 ↗
22. 10.1002/mawe.20230023010.1002/mawe.202300230 ↗
23. 10.1186/1475-925X-4-4610.1186/1475-925X-4-46 ↗
24. Deshmukh RM, Kulkarni SS. A review on biomaterials in orthopedic bone plate application. Int J Curr Eng Technol. 2015;55(44):2277–4106.
25. Einhorn TA. The science of fracture healing. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19(10):19–21.10.1097/00005131-200511101-00002 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2008.06.00410.1016/j.pmatsci.2008.06.004 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.03.00810.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.03.008 ↗
28. 10.1002/acp.235008060610.1002/acp.2350080606 ↗
29. 10.1007/s00264-009-0880-410.1007/s00264-009-0880-4 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.10825910.1016/j.matdes.2019.108259 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.02.09610.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.02.096 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.02.01810.1016/j.actbio.2012.02.018 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2024.04.13610.1016/j.jmrt.2024.04.136 ↗
34. Rey-Vinolas S Engel E Mateos-Timoneda MA. Polymers for bone repair. In Bone repair biomaterials. Woodhead Publishing; 2019. p. 179–197.10.1016/B978-0-08-102451-5.00007-X ↗
35. 10.1002/adfm.20180873810.1002/adfm.201808738 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2022.10102010.1016/j.pmatsci.2022.101020 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.04.01510.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.04.015 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.reth.2021.12.00410.1016/j.reth.2021.12.004 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2022.01.05010.1016/j.jmrt.2022.01.050 ↗
40. Deshmukh RM Kulkarni PSS. Experimental investigation and prediction of mechanical properties of a composite material for bone plate application. Int J Curr Eng Technol. 2015; 4(16):4–8.
41. 10.1007/s44164-024-00065-410.1007/s44164-024-00065-4 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2012.12.01310.1016/j.jmbbm.2012.12.013 ↗
43. 10.1136/jcp.48.6.55610.1136/jcp.48.6.556 ↗
44. 10.3390/polym1112193310.3390/polym11121933 ↗
45. 10.1080/09205063.2022.213507610.1080/09205063.2022.2135076 ↗
46. Ansari F Ritchie RO Pruitt LA. Notch fatigue of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) used in total joint replacements notch fatigue of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) used in total joint replacements. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016;60:267–279.10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.02.014 ↗
47. Hench LL Thompson I. Twenty-first century challenges for biomaterials. J R Soc Interface 2010;7(4):S379–S391.10.1098/rsif.2010.0151.focus ↗
48. 10.1098/rsif.2008.015110.1098/rsif.2008.0151 ↗
49. 10.1016/S0142-9612(97)00155-510.1016/S0142-9612(97)00155-5 ↗
50. 10.1016/s0142-9612(02)00151-510.1016/s0142-9612(02)00151-5 ↗
51. 10.1002/jbm.a.2001410.1002/jbm.a.20014 ↗
52. 10.1016/B978-1-4557-2834-3.00017-310.1016/B978-1-4557-2834-3.00017-3 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.cobme.2022.10043910.1016/j.cobme.2022.100439 ↗
54. 10.1155/2012/14826110.1155/2012/148261 ↗
55. 10.3390/ijms1901001710.3390/ijms19010017 ↗
56. 10.1155/2011/50148310.1155/2011/501483 ↗
57. 10.1201/b15739-710.1201/b15739-7 ↗
58. 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2015.04.00210.1016/j.progpolymsci.2015.04.002 ↗
59. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.03.01910.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.03.019 ↗
60. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.10455210.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104552 ↗
61. 10.1016/B978-0-12-801238-3.10999-710.1016/B978-0-12-801238-3.10999-7 ↗
62. 10.1016/j.finmec.2022.10015810.1016/j.finmec.2022.100158 ↗
63. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.07.05210.1016/j.compstruct.2014.07.052 ↗
64. 10.1016/j.mex.2024.10305610.1016/j.mex.2024.103056 ↗
65. 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2024.09.01510.1016/j.bioactmat.2024.09.015 ↗
66. 10.1016/j.matdes.2020.10914210.1016/j.matdes.2020.109142 ↗
67. 10.1016/j.msea.2020.13945610.1016/j.msea.2020.139456 ↗
68. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.11.03410.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.11.034 ↗
69. 10.1016/j.engreg.2024.05.00210.1016/j.engreg.2024.05.002 ↗
70. 10.1016/j.jallcom.2020.15392410.1016/j.jallcom.2020.153924 ↗
71. 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.06.03710.1016/j.actbio.2012.06.037 ↗
72. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.12.03210.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.12.032 ↗
73. 10.4047/jap.2017.9.3.17610.4047/jap.2017.9.3.176 ↗
74. 10.1016/j.jallcom.2020.15649410.1016/j.jallcom.2020.156494 ↗
75. 10.1016/j.jestch.2022.10127710.1016/j.jestch.2022.101277 ↗
76. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2022.10.00410.1016/j.jmrt.2022.10.004 ↗
77. 10.1016/j.mtbio.2022.10053310.1016/j.mtbio.2022.100533 ↗
78. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.03.06310.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.03.063 ↗
79. 10.1016/j.arabjc.2020.10297710.1016/j.arabjc.2020.102977 ↗
80. Rivard C-H Rhalmi S Coillard C. In vivo biocompatibility testing of peek polymer for a spinal implant system: a study in rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002; 62(4):488–498.10.1002/jbm.10159 ↗
81. 10.1002/pc.2660910.1002/pc.26609 ↗
82. Rahman NA Bahruji H. Plastics in biomedical application. In: Encyclopedia of Materials: Plastics and Polymers. Elsevier; 2022. p. 114–125.10.1016/B978-0-12-820352-1.00071-7 ↗
83. 10.1111/j.1551-2916.2007.01725.x10.1111/j.1551-2916.2007.01725.x ↗
84. Ammar A. Tissue compatibility of different intracranial implant materials: in-vivo and in-vitro studies. Acta Neurochir 1984; 72:45–59.10.1007/BF01406813 ↗
85. 10.1016/j.dental.2007.05.00510.1016/j.dental.2007.05.005 ↗
86. Kornberg HL, Krebs HA. © 1957 Nature Publishing Group. Group Nature Publishing. 1957;180:756–757.
87. Malekani J, Schmutz B, Gu Y. Biomaterials in orthopedic bone plates: a review. Proceedings of the …; 2011. p. 71–77.
88. 10.1007/s00776-005-0984-710.1007/s00776-005-0984-7 ↗
89. 10.1016/j.commatsci.2020.11021610.1016/j.commatsci.2020.110216 ↗
90. 10.3390/ijms1504542610.3390/ijms15045426 ↗
91. 10.1177/002199832094036710.1177/0021998320940367 ↗
92. 10.1002/jbm.a.3460510.1002/jbm.a.34605 ↗
93. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2020.10592910.1016/j.compositesa.2020.105929 ↗
94. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2017.04.03710.1016/j.compscitech.2017.04.037 ↗
95. 10.1002/jbm.b.3118210.1002/jbm.b.31182 ↗
96. 10.1016/B978-0-12-803802-4.00011-110.1016/B978-0-12-803802-4.00011-1 ↗
97. 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-062117-12113910.1146/annurev-bioeng-062117-121139 ↗
98. 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2021.10528010.1016/j.clinbiomech.2021.105280 ↗
99. 10.1007/s00223-001-2102-y10.1007/s00223-001-2102-y ↗
100. Augat P von Rüden C. Evolution of fracture treatment with bone plates. Injury 2018;49:S2–S7.10.1016/S0020-1383(18)30294-8 ↗