Submitted:
21 March 2024
Posted:
23 March 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Investigation Approach
2.1. Characterization of Geometry, Microarchitecture, and Stiffness Properties of Bones
2.2. Design of Lattice Structures Adjusted to Match Bone Stiffness Distribution
2.3. Parametric Investigation of Lattice Structure Design
2.4. Materials and Fabrication of the Experimental Lattice Structures
2.5. Evaluation of Geometric Features of Printed Lattices
2.6. Characterization of Stiffness and Strength of Investigated Lattice Structures
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Parametric Analysis of Design Parameters Effect on Lattice Microstructure
3.2. Parametric Analysis of Structure Parameters’ Effects on Lattice Stiffness
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
References
- Ulrich SD, Seyler TM, Bennett D, Delanois RE, Saleh KJ, Thongtrangan I, Kuskowski M, Cheng EY, Sharkey PF, Parvizi J, Stiehl JB. Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision? International Orthopedic. 32(5) (2008), 597-604. [CrossRef]
- Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. 467(10) (2009), 2606-12. https://Doi.10.1007/s11999-009-0834-6.
- Hutmacher, D.W. Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials 2000, 21, 2427–2431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Bael, S.; Kerckhofs, G.; Moesen, M.; Pyka, G.; Schrooten, J.; Kruth, J.P. Micro-CT-based improvement of geometrical and mechanical controllability of selective laser melted Ti6Al4V porous structures. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2011, 528, 7423–7431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdelrhman, Y.; Gepreel, M.A.; Kobayashi, S.; Okano, S.; Okamoto, T. Biocompatibility of new low-cost (alpha+beta)-type Ti-Mo-Fe alloys for long-term implantation. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 2019, 99, 552–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huiskes R, Weinans H, Van Rietbergen B. The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clinical Orthopaedics and related research. ( 1992) Jan 1, 124–34.
- Ridzwan MI, Shuib S, Hassan AY, Shokri AA, Ibrahim MM. Problem of stress shielding and improvement to the hip implant designs: a review. J. Med. Sci. 7(3) (2007), 460-7. [CrossRef]
- Arabnejad S, Johnston B, Tanzer M, Pasini D. Fully porous 3D printed titanium femoral stem to reduce stress-shielding following total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Orthopedic Research. 35(8) (2017), 1774-83. [CrossRef]
- Agnieszka Chmielewska, David Dean. The role of stiffness-matching in avoiding stress shielding-induced bone loss and stress concentration-induced skeletal reconstruction device failure. Acta Biomaterialia 173 (2024) 51–65. [CrossRef]
- https://www.zimmerbiometdental.
- Vaishya R, Chauhan M, Vaish A. Bone cement. Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma. 4(4) (2013), 157-63.
- Liu, R.; Su, Y.; Yang, W.; Wu, K.; Du, R.; Zhong, Y. A Novel Design Method of Gradient Porous Structure for Stabilized and Lightweight Mandibular Prosthesis. Bioengineering. 2022, 9, 424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, X.; El-Gizawy, A.S. Development of customized cellular structures to match the mechanical properties of human trabecular bone. Solid Freeform Fabrication 2018: Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium – An Additive Manufacturing Conference, August 13-15, 2018, 65, Austin, Texas, USA. [Google Scholar]
- El-Gizawy, A.S.; Ma, X.; Pfeiffer, F.; Schiffbauer, J.D.; Selly, T. Characterization of Microarchitectures, Stiffness and Strength of Human Trabecular Bone Using Micro-Computed Tomography (Micro-CT) Scans. BioMed 2023, 3, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Next-Gen Engineering Design Software: nTop, www.ntop.com.
- Phadke, M.S. Quality Engineering Using Robust Design. Prentice Hall, Englewood, CA. 1989.
- Arnone, J.; El-Gizawy, A.S.; Ward, C.; Della Rocca, G.; Crist, B. An integrated computer-aided engineering approach for parametric investigation of locked plating systems design, ASME Transactions, J. Med. Devices 7:2, 1-8, 2013. [CrossRef]
- 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. Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2016;59: 690-701. [CrossRef]











| Factors (Design Paramters) |
Levels | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| Unit Cell Type (A) | Cube Vertex Centroid | Cubic Diamond | Cubic Fluorite | |
| Cell Size (B), mm | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 | |
| Strut Shapes (C) | Square | Hexagon | Circle | |
| Strut Thickness (D), mm | 0.23 | 0.28 | 0.33 | |
| Experimental (Measurements)- Log | ||||
| Lattice Design (experiment) # |
Unit Cell Type A |
Cell Size, mm B |
Strut Shape C |
Strut Thickness, mm D |
| 1 | Cube Vertex Centroid | 1.2 | Square | 0.23 |
| 2 | Cube Vertex Centroid | 1.4 | Hexagon | 0.28 |
| 3 | Cube Vertex Centroid | 1.6 | Circle | 0.33 |
| 4 | Cubic Diamond | 1.2 | Hexagon | 0.33 |
| 5 | Cubic Diamond | 1.4 | Circle | 0.23 |
| 6 | Cubic Diamond | 1.6 | Square | 0.28 |
| 7 | Cubic Fluorite | 1.2 | Circle | 0.28 |
| 8 | Cubic Fluorite | 1.4 | Square | 0.33 |
| 9 | Cubic Fluorite | 1.6 | Hexagon | 0.23 |
| EOS Ti64 Material Composition | ||||||||
| Element | Ti | Al | V | O | N | C | H | Fe |
| wt-% | balance | 5.5-6.75 | 3.5-4.5 | <0.2 | <0.05 | <0.08 | <0.015 | <0.3 |
| Lattice Design # |
Surface Area, mm2 |
Pore Size, mm | Porosity, % | Compression Testing | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elastic Modulus, MPa | Yield Strength, MPa | ||||
| Exp#1 | 21344.55 | 1.23 | 83.5 | 708.1 | 17.0 |
| Exp#2 | 18352.45 | 1.41 | 80.9 | 706.9 | 19.6 |
| Exp#3 | 14264.43 | 1.58 | 83.5 | 616.5 | 16.8 |
| Exp#4 | 25367.25 | 0.74 | 69.2 | 2513.3 | 58.2 |
| Exp#5 | 15098.33 | 1.08 | 89.0 | 688.1 | 16.8 |
| Exp#6 | 15296.34 | 1.12 | 85.0 | 1124.4 | 25.6 |
| Exp#7 | 33566.66 | 0.74 | 61.4 | 3345.9 | 99.6 |
| Exp#8 | 31190.34 | 0.72 | 52.3 | 5357.4 | 77.4 |
| Exp#9 | 21075.15 | 1.17 | 81.1 | 1248.5 | 30.3 |
| Experimental (Measurements)- Log |
Mean Modulus/Mpa |
Standard Deviation Modulus |
||||
| Lattice Design # |
Unit Cell Type |
Cell Size, mm |
Strut Shape |
Strut Thickness, mm |
µ | σ |
| 1 | Cube Vertex Centroid |
1.2 | Square | 0.23 | 708.1 | 76.5 |
| 2 | Cube Vertex Centroid |
1.4 | Hexagon | 0.28 | 706.9 | 56.2 |
| 3 | Cube Vertex Centroid |
1.6 | Circle | 0.33 | 616.5 | 50.9 |
| 4 | Cubic Diamond |
1.2 | Hexagon | 0.33 | 2513.3 | 398.3 |
| 5 | Cubic Diamond |
1.4 | Circle | 0.23 | 688.1 | 73.4 |
| 6 | Cubic Diamond |
1.6 | Square | 0.28 | 1124.4 | 164.3 |
| 7 | Cubic Fluorite |
1.2 | Circle | 0.28 | 3345.9 | 861.3 |
| 8 | Cubic Fluorite |
1.4 | Square | 0.33 | 5357.4 | 3055.8 |
| 9 | Cubic Fluorite |
1.6 | Hexagon | 0.23 | 1248.5 | 135.4 |
| ANOVA Table for Modulus of Elasticity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | Degrees of Freedom D.F |
Sum of Squares, Sx |
Mean Square Vx=Sx/D.F |
Variance Ratio, F |
Percentage Contribution, ϱ (%) |
| Unit Cell Type A |
2 | 3,863,449 | 1,931,724 | 2.5 | 27 |
| Cell Size B |
2 | 2,999,370 | 1,499,685 | 1.94 | 21 |
| Strut Shape C |
2 | 1,542,907 | 771,454 | 1.0 | 11 |
| Strut Thickness D |
2 | 5,722,752 | 2,816,371 | 3.65 | 41 |
| Totals | 8 | 14,128,478 | 1,766,059 | 100 | |
| (Error) | (2) | (1,542,907) | (771,454) | ||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).