Fabrication of a lattice structure with periodic open pores through three-dimensional printing for bone ingrowth

Abstract

Lattice structures for implants can be printed using metal three-dimensional (3D)-printing and used as a porous microstructures to enhance bone ingrowth as orthopedic implants. However, designs and 3D-printed products can vary. Thus, we aimed to investigate whether targeted pores can be consistently obtained despite printing errors. The cube-shaped specimen was printed with one side 15 mm long and a full lattice with a dode-thin structure of 1.15, 1.5, and 2.0 mm made using selective laser melting. Beam compensation was applied, increasing it until the vector was lost. For each specimen, the actual unit size and strut thickness were measured 50 times. Pore size was calculated from unit size and strut thickness, and porosity was determined from the specimen’s weight. The actual average pore sizes for 1.15, 1.5, and 2.0 mm outputs were 257.9, 406.2, and 633.6 μm, and volume porosity was 62, 70, and 80%, respectively. No strut breakage or gross deformation was observed in any 3D-printed specimens, and the pores were uniformly fabricated with < 10% standard deviation. The actual micrometer-scaled printed structures were significantly different to the design, but this error was not random. Although the accuracy was low, precision was high for pore cells, so reproducibility was confirmed.

The use of customized 3D‐printed mandibular prostheses with pressure‐reducing device: A clinical trial

“…However, we did not determine any significant correlation among any of these parameters (Table 2). In 3D printing, the lattice structure design can make products both lighter and stronger 23,24 . We utilized this design to reduce the weight of the CMP and compared the weight of the excised tumor with that of the CMP.…”

“…In 3D printing, the lattice structure design can make products both lighter and stronger. 23,24 We utilized this design to reduce the weight of the CMP and compared the weight of the excised tumor with that of the CMP. We observed no significant difference (p = 0.3882) between the weight of the excised tumor and that of the CMP.…”