Three-Dimensional Printing of a Spinal Interbody: Design Principles, Biomaterials, and Translational Considerations
Source abstract
Abstract
Background: Interbody spinal fusion is a common surgical treatment for degenerative, traumatic, and deformity-related spinal pathologies. Despite advances in cage geometry and fixation strategies that improve alignment and early stability, reliable fusion remains limited by the mechanical and biological constraints of conventional interbody implant materials. Traditional titanium and polymer-based cages often fail to optimally balance load sharing, osteointegration, and biological activity within the mechanically demanding interbody environment. This narrative review examines the development and translational potential of 3D-printed interbody fusion devices, with emphasis on how additive manufacturing enables the integration of mechanical performance with biologically active scaffold design. Methods: A thorough literature review was performed to evaluate the evolution, design principles, material properties, and translational outcomes of three-dimensional (3D)-printed interbody fusion devices. Results: Additive manufacturing enables precise control over implant architecture, allowing for the fabrication of porous, lattice-based cages with tunable stiffness, optimized load sharing, and enhanced bone–implant integration. Preclinical and early clinical studies suggest that 3D-printed porous titanium cages may reduce subsidence, promote osteointegration, and improve fusion-related outcomes compared with conventional designs. Emerging evidence indicates that scaffold porosity, surface microtopography, and bioactive coatings influence macrophage polarization, angiogenesis, and osteogenic signaling. Polymeric and composite constructs, particularly hybrid designs incorporating surface functionalization, represent promising adjuncts, though clinical evidence remains limited. Conclusions: Three-dimensional printing represents a paradigm shift in interbody fusion device design. Continued translational research and longer-term clinical follow-up are required to validate efficacy and guide widespread clinical adoption.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology · Cervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
The Steadman Clinic, Vail, CO 81657, USA
The Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, CO 81657, USA
School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350, USA
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Allografts and Spinal Fusion10.14444/8056 ↗
2. Advancements in biomaterials and bioactive solutions for lumbar spine fusion cages: Current trends and future perspectives
3. Innovative Developments in Lumbar Interbody Cage Materials and Design: A Comprehensive Narrative Review10.31616/asj.2023.0407 ↗
4. Seex, K.A., Mobbs, R.J., Coughlan, M., Pelletier, M., Walsh, W.R., Hill, J.C., and Parr, W.C.H. (2025). Clinical Outcomes of 3D-Printed Titanium Patient-Specific Implants in Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Clinical Trial with a Systematic Review of Conventional Techniques. J. Pers. Med., 15.10.3390/jpm15070320 ↗
5. Zhang, H., Wang, Z., Wang, Y., Li, Z., Chao, B., Liu, S., Luo, W., Jiao, J., and Wu, M. (2022). Biomaterials for Interbody Fusion in Bone Tissue Engineering. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol., 10.10.3389/fbioe.2022.900992 ↗
6. Therapeutics for enhancement of spinal fusion: A mini review
7. Impact of surface roughness and bulk porosity on spinal interbody implants10.1002/jbm.b.35161 ↗
8. Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Personalized Approach: Is Custom the Future of Implants for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery?10.1016/j.wneu.2018.12.144 ↗
9. An early comparative analysis of the use of autograft versus allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
10. Current Updates on Bone Grafting Biomaterials and Recombinant Human Growth Factors Implanted Biotherapy for Spinal Fusion: A Review of Human Clinical Studies10.2174/1567201815666181024142354 ↗
11. Biomaterials and Bioactive Agents in Spinal Fusion10.1089/ten.teb.2017.0072 ↗
12. Effect of porous orthopaedic implant material and structure on load sharing with simulated bone ingrowth: A finite element analysis comparing titanium and PEEK10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.01.017 ↗
13. Evolution of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium interbody devices for spinal procedures: A comprehensive review of the literature10.1007/s00586-022-07272-1 ↗
14. Evolution of Titanium Interbody Cages and Current Uses of 3D Printed Titanium in Spine Fusion Surgery10.1007/s12178-024-09912-z ↗
15. Additive Manufacturing of Material Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration: Toward Application in the Clinics10.1002/adfm.202006967 ↗
16. SANRA—A scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8 ↗
17. A systematic review of bone graft products used in lumbar interbody fusion procedures for degenerative disc disease
18. Simultaneous combined anterior and posterior fusion. A surgical solution for failed spinal surgery with a brief review of the first 150 patients10.1097/00003086-198602000-00024 ↗
19. Bone grafting alternatives in spinal surgery10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00180-8 ↗
20. Graft options in posterolateral and posterior interbody lumbar fusion10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d25803 ↗
21. Bone graft and bone graft substitutes in spine surgery: Current concepts and controversies10.5435/JAAOS-21-01-51 ↗
22. Complications of the Use Allograft in 1- or 2-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review10.1177/21925682231173358 ↗
23. Overview of the biology of lumbar spine fusion and principles for selecting a bone graft substitute10.1097/00007632-200208151-00007 ↗
24. Bone grafts and their substitutes10.1302/0301-620X.98B.36350 ↗
25. Rolvien, T., Barbeck, M., Wenisch, S., Amling, M., and Krause, M. (2018). Cellular Mechanisms Responsible for Success and Failure of Bone Substitute Materials. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 19.10.3390/ijms19102893 ↗
26. Section on innovative spine research and novel technologies: Fusion cage design, materials, and coatings: Science versus hype
27. Porous fusion cage design via integrated global-local topology optimization and biomechanical analysis of performance10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103982 ↗
28. Osteoimmunology: Interactions With the Immune System in Spinal Fusion10.14444/8556 ↗
29. Titanium implants and type IV hypersensitivity reactions: A systematic literature review10.1016/j.fastrc.2025.100578 ↗
30. Surface engineering of biomaterials in orthopedic and dental implants: Strategies to improve osteointegration, bacteriostatic and bactericidal activities10.1002/biot.202000116 ↗
31. Spinal implant-associated infections: A prospective multicentre cohort study10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106116 ↗
32. Influence of Deformation and Stress between Bone and Implant from Various Bite Forces by Numerical Simulation Analysis10.1155/2017/2827953 ↗
33. Implications of 3-Dimensional Printed Spinal Implants on the Outcomes in Spine Surgery10.3340/jkns.2020.0272 ↗
34. Ceramic Biologics for Bony Fusion-a Journey from First to Third Generations10.1007/s12178-020-09651-x ↗
35. Lo, W.C., Tsai, L.W., Yang, Y.S., and Chan, R.W.Y. (2021). Understanding the Future Prospects of Synergizing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery with Ceramics and Regenerative Cellular Therapies. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 22.10.3390/ijms22073638 ↗
36. Material Science in Cervical Total Disc Replacement10.1155/2015/719123 ↗
37. Density and mechanical properties of vertebral trabecular bone—A review10.1002/jsp2.1176 ↗
38. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.013 ↗
39. Litak, J., Szymoniuk, M., Czyżewski, W., Hoffman, Z., Litak, J., Sakwa, L., and Kamieniak, P. (2022). Metallic implants used in lumbar interbody fusion. Materials, 15.10.3390/ma15103650 ↗
40. Structural and mechanical evaluations of a topology optimized titanium interbody fusion cage fabricated by selective laser melting process10.1002/jbm.a.31231 ↗
41. Additively-manufactured PEEK/HA porous scaffolds with highly-controllable mechanical properties and excellent biocompatibility10.1016/j.msec.2021.112333 ↗
42. Reduced subsidence with PEEK-titanium composite versus 3D titanium cages in a retrospective, self-controlled study in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion10.1177/21925682241253168 ↗
43. Bioresorbable polymers: Heading for a new generation of spinal cages10.1007/s00586-005-1003-6 ↗
44. Engineering surfaces of polymer-based medical implants for tissue repair and regeneration10.1016/j.jconrel.2025.114540 ↗
45. Additive manufacturing of metallic components by selective electron beam melting—A review10.1080/09506608.2016.1176289 ↗
46. Pan, C.T., Lin, C.H., Huang, Y.K., Jang, J.S.C., Lin, H.K., Kuo, C.N., Lin, D.Y., and Huang, J.C. (2021). Design of Customize Interbody Fusion Cages of Ti64ELI with Gradient Porosity by Selective Laser Melting Process. Micromachines, 12.10.3390/mi12030307 ↗
47. Liu, S.X., Zeng, T.H., Chen, C.M., He, L.R., Feng, A.P., Jhang, S.W., and Lin, G.X. (2024). 3D-printed porous titanium versus polyetheretherketone cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis of subsidence. Front. Med., 11, Erratum in Front. Med. 2025, 12, 1594590. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1594590. PMID: 39744537; PMCID: PMC11688201.10.3389/fmed.2025.1594590 ↗
48. Mukasheva, F., Adilova, L., Dyussenbinov, A., Yernaimanova, B., Abilev, M., and Akilbekova, D. (2024). Optimizing scaffold pore size for tissue engineering: Insights across various tissue types. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol., 12.10.3389/fbioe.2024.1444986 ↗
49. Review of laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) fabricated Ti-6Al-4V: Process, post-process treatment, microstructure, and property
50. Dual modulation of crystallinity and macro-/microstructures of 3D printed porous titanium implants to enhance stability and osseointegration10.1039/C9TB00093C ↗
51. Subsidence and fusion performance of a 3D-printed porous interbody cage with stress-optimized body lattice and microporous endplates—A comprehensive mechanical and biological analysis10.1016/j.spinee.2022.01.003 ↗
52. Selective Laser Melting Molding of Individualized Femur Implant: Design, Process, Optimization10.1007/s42235-021-0007-1 ↗
53. Zhang, G., Li, J., Zhou, X., Zhou, Y., Xie, J., and Bai, Y. (2025). Optimization Design of High-Performance Powder-Spreading Arm for Metal 3D Printers. Micromachines, 16.10.3390/mi16111194 ↗
54. Martinez-Marquez, D., Jokymaityte, M., Mirnajafizadeh, A., Carty, C.P., Lloyd, D., and Stewart, R.A. (2019). Development of 18 Quality Control Gates for Additive Manufacturing of Error Free Patient-Specific Implants. Materials, 12.10.3390/ma12193110 ↗
55. Additive manufacturing of Ti6Al4V alloy via electron beam melting for the development of implants for the biomedical industry10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06892 ↗
56. Novel laser surface texturing for improved primary stability of titanium implants10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.04.052 ↗
57. Porous titanium-6 aluminum-4 vanadium cage has better osseointegration and less micromotion than a poly-ether-ether-ketone cage in sheep vertebral fusion10.1111/aor.12153 ↗
58. Wickramasinghe, S., Do, T., and Tran, P. (2020). FDM-Based 3D Printing of Polymer and Associated Composite: A Review on Mechanical Properties, Defects and Treatments. Polymers, 12.10.3390/polym12071529 ↗
59. Fused deposition modelling: Current status, methodology, applications and future prospects
60. Rapid prototyping technology and its application in bone tissue engineering10.1631/jzus.B1600118 ↗
61. Realistic 3D-Printed Lumbar Spine Model for Non-cadaveric Surgical Training: A Proof of Concept Study
62. Msallem, B., Vavrina, J.J., Beyer, M., Halbeisen, F.S., Lauer, G., Dragu, A., and Thieringer, F.M. (2024). Dimensional Accuracy in 3D Printed Medical Models: A Follow-Up Study on SLA and SLS Technology. J. Clin. Med., 13.10.3390/jcm13195848 ↗
63. Cong, B., and Zhang, H. (2025). Innovative 3D printing technologies and advanced materials revolutionizing orthopedic surgery: Current applications and future directions. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol., 13.10.3389/fbioe.2025.1542179 ↗
64. A Novel Patient-Specific Drill Guide Template for Pedicle Screw Insertion into the Subaxial Cervical Spine Utilizing Stereolithographic Modelling: An In Vitro Study10.4184/asj.2017.11.1.4 ↗
65. Aplication of the stereolithography technique in complex spine surgery10.1590/S0004-282X2007000300015 ↗
66. High-strength, porous additively manufactured implants with optimized mechanical osseointegration10.1016/j.biomaterials.2021.121206 ↗
67. Biological strategies for improved osseointegration and osteoinduction of porous metal orthopedic implants10.1089/ten.teb.2014.0333 ↗
68. Interbody Spacer Material Properties and Design Conformity for Reducing Subsidence During Lumbar Interbody Fusion10.1115/1.4036312 ↗
69. Subsidence Rates Associated With Porous 3D-Printed Versus Solid Titanium Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion10.1177/21925682231157762 ↗
70. 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 ↗
71. Fortifying the Bone-Implant Interface Part 1: An In Vitro Evaluation of 3D-Printed and TPS Porous Surfaces10.14444/4015 ↗
72. Biomechanical analysis of functionally graded porous interbody cage for lumbar spinal fusion10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107281 ↗
73. Novel 3D printed TPMS scaffolds: Microstructure, characteristics and applications in bone regeneration10.1177/20417314241263689 ↗
74. Novel 3D printed lattice structure titanium cages evaluated in an ovine model of interbody fusion10.1002/jsp2.1268 ↗
75. 3D-printed titanium cages for anterior and lateral lumbar interbody fusion result in excellent fusion rates one year after surgery10.1177/21925682251344557 ↗
76. Mechanical properties and fluid permeability of gyroid and diamond lattice structures for intervertebral devices: Functional requirements and comparative analysis10.1080/14686996.2021.1907222 ↗
77. Triply periodic minimal surface-based scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: A mechanical, in vitro and in vivo study10.1089/ten.tea.2023.0033 ↗
78. Design and mechanical characterization of TPMS cellular structures additively manufactured by the selective laser melting process for use in intervertebral lumbar cages10.1007/s40964-025-01097-2 ↗
79. Naghavi, S.A., Tamaddon, M., Marghoub, A., Wang, K., Babamiri, B.B., Hazeli, K., Xu, W., Lu, X., Sun, C., and Wang, L. (2022). Mechanical characterisation and numerical modelling of TPMS-based gyroid and diamond Ti6Al4V scaffolds for bone implants: An integrated approach for translational consideration. Bioengineering, 9.10.3390/bioengineering9100504 ↗
80. Graft subsidence and reoperation after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: A propensity score-matched and cost analysis of polyetheretherketone versus 3D-printed porous titanium interbodies10.3171/2023.4.SPINE22492 ↗
81. Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Tritanium Posterolateral Cage (vs. Propensity-Matched Cohort of PEEK Cage)10.22603/ssrr.2021-0252 ↗
82. Comparison Between 3-Dimensional-Printed Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Cages: 1-Year Outcome After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion10.14245/ns.2244140.070 ↗
83. Comparison of Fusion, Subsidence, and Clinical Results Between 3D-Printed Porous Titanium Cage and Polyetheretherketone Cage in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Minimum of 2 Years Follow-Up10.1016/j.wneu.2023.06.132 ↗
84. Vertebral Reconstruction with Customized 3-Dimensional-Printed Spine Implant Replacing Large Vertebral Defect with 3-Year Follow-up10.1016/j.wneu.2019.02.020 ↗
85. A Review of Current Clinical Applications of Three-Dimensional Printing in Spine Surgery10.4184/asj.2018.12.1.171 ↗
86. CT evaluation of lumbar interbody fusion: Current concepts
87. Metal-related artifacts in instrumented spine. Techniques for reducing artifacts in CT and MRI: State of the art10.1007/s00586-009-0998-5 ↗
88. CT metal artifact reduction in the spine: Can an iterative reconstruction technique improve visualization?10.3174/ajnr.A4416 ↗
89. Peng, S.H., and Pao, J.L. (2026). CT evaluation of lumbar interbody fusion: A comprehensive review with an integrated framework for principle-based interpretation. Diagnostics, 16.10.3390/diagnostics16010140 ↗
90. Metallic artefact reduction with monoenergetic dual-energy CT: Systematic ex vivo evaluation of posterior spinal fusion implants from various vendors and different spine levels10.1007/s00330-012-2501-7 ↗
91. Reducing MRI susceptibility artefacts in implants using additively manufactured porous Ti-6Al-4V structures10.1016/j.actbio.2020.02.038 ↗
92. Effective magnetic susceptibility of 3D-printed porous metal scaffolds10.1002/mrm.29136 ↗
93. van den Brink, W., and Lamerigts, N. (2020). Complete osseointegration of a retrieved 3-D printed porous titanium cervical cage. Front. Surg., 7.10.3389/fsurg.2020.526020 ↗
94. A multifaceted biomimetic interface to improve the longevity of orthopedic implants10.1016/j.actbio.2020.04.020 ↗
95. Biofunctionalization of 3D printed PEEK using integrated cathodic arc plasma coating: A one-step solution to antimicrobial and bioactive PEEK Implant10.1007/s10856-025-06971-7 ↗
96. A laser-aided direct metal tooling technology for artificial joint surface coating10.1007/s12541-017-0030-7 ↗
97. Effect of surface roughness on osteogenesis in vitro and osseointegration in vivo of carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone-nanohydroxyapatite composite
98. Wu, Y., Shi, X., Wang, J., Li, Y., Wu, J., Jia, D., Bai, Y., Wu, X., and Xu, Y. (2023). A surface metal ion-modified 3D-printed Ti-6Al-4V implant with direct and immunoregulatory antibacterial and osteogenic activity. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol., 11.10.3389/fbioe.2023.1142264 ↗
99. Engineering macrophage responses through 3D scaffold microarchitecture10.1016/j.mtbio.2025.102328 ↗
100. Research progress on the biological modifications of implant materials in 3D printed intervertebral fusion cages10.1007/s10856-021-06609-4 ↗