Influence of Electron Beam Melting Manufactured Implants on Ingrowth and Shear Strength in an Ovine Model

Bertollo, Nicky; Assuncao, Ruy Da; Hancock, Nicholas; Lau, A.; Walsh, William R.

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.025

Cited by 50 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Biemond et al found that the bone‐implant contact of EBM produced implant is around 24–25%, similar to titanium plasma sprayed implant (25.5%), and that the presence of coating did not produce better bone in‐growth or mechanical fixation strength, which suggests that the as‐fabricated EBM part may be directly used without surface treatment. Bertollo et al also found no difference in bone in‐growth properties by comparing as‐fabricated EBM parts with titanium plasma‐sprayed ones . In a study, porous Ti structures were fabricated using SLM and the surfaces were left untreated, sandblasted, or sandblasted/acid etched.…”

Section: Design Considerations For Orthopaedic Implants Using Additivmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bertollo et al also found no difference in bone in-growth properties by comparing asfabricated EBM parts with titanium plasmasprayed ones. 41 In a study, porous Ti structures were fabricated using SLM and the surfaces were left untreated, sandblasted, or sandblasted/acid etched. It was observed in the rabbit model that bone bridging was significantly increased in sand blasted acid-etched scaffolds, indicating the needs for specially designed surface characteristic to improve osteo-conduction of the implants.…”

Section: Surface Topology and Coating Of Additive Manufactured Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Detailed study on microstructural and mechanical characteristics of Ti6Al4V parts made using EBM have been done by many researchers. 32,35,41,83,84 All the studies reported that the microstructure of EBM produced Ti6Al4V parts consist of a phase with small amount of retained b phase. This is different from the microstructure obtained by SLM, which is completely martensitic.…”

Section: Surface Roughnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Laser and electron‐beam powder‐bed additive manufacturing of metallic implants: A review on processes, materials and designs

Sing

Yeong

et al. 2015

Journal Orthopaedic Research

764

372

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Additive manufacturing (AM), also commonly known as 3D printing, allows the direct fabrication of functional parts with complex shapes from digital models. In this review, the current progress of two AM processes suitable for metallic orthopaedic implant applications, namely selective laser melting (SLM) and electron beam melting (EBM) are presented. Several critical design factors such as the need for data acquisition for patient-specific design, design dependent porosity for osteo-inductive implants, surface topology of the implants and design for reduction of stress-shielding in implants are discussed. Additive manufactured biomaterials such as 316L stainless steel, titanium-6aluminium-4vanadium (Ti6Al4V) and cobalt-chromium (CoCr) are highlighted. Limitations and future potential of such technologies are also explored. ß

show abstract

Section: Design Considerations For Orthopaedic Implants Using Additivmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Surface Topology and Coating Of Additive Manufactured Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Surface Roughnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Laser and electron‐beam powder‐bed additive manufacturing of metallic implants: A review on processes, materials and designs

Sing

Yeong

et al. 2015

Journal Orthopaedic Research

764

372

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results are consistent with a study that found the ultimate shear strength of AM titanium rods with a porous surface to be significantly greater than TPS-coated rods in ovine tibial cortical bone at both 4 and 12 weeks. 32 Bertollo et al attributed their results to greater osteointegration into the more porous surface of their AM scaffolds. 32 Although the present study did not similarly find statistical differences in the push-out testing of the AM versus TPS implants, this may be due to fact that the testing was conducted on segments fully surrounded by cancellous bone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…32 Bertollo et al attributed their results to greater osteointegration into the more porous surface of their AM scaffolds. 32 Although the present study did not similarly find statistical differences in the push-out testing of the AM versus TPS implants, this may be due to fact that the testing was conducted on segments fully surrounded by cancellous bone. While the ultimate shear strength of sheep cancellous bone has yet to be reported, the ultimate shear strength of bovine femoral cancellous bone has been measured at 6.57±2.46 MPa.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fortifying the Bone-Implant Interface Part 2: An In Vivo Evaluation of 3D-Printed and TPS-Coated Triangular Implants

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A systematic review of preclinical in vivo testing of 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V for orthopedic applications, part I: Animal models and bone ingrowth outcome measures

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For Ti6Al4V orthopedic and spinal implants, osseointegration is often achieved using complex porous geometries created via additive manufacturing (AM). While AM porous titanium (pTi) has shown clinical success, concerns regarding metallic implants have spurred interest in alternative AM biomaterials for osseointegration. Insights regarding the evaluation of these new materials may be supported by better understanding the role of preclinical testing for AM pTi. We therefore asked: (a) What animal models have been most commonly used to evaluate AM porous Ti6Al4V for orthopedic bone ingrowth; (b) What were the primary reported quantitative outcome measures for these models; and (c) What were the bone ingrowth outcomes associated with the most frequently used models? We performed a systematic literature search and identified 58 articles meeting our inclusion criteria. We found that AM pTi was evaluated most often using rabbit and sheep femoral condyle defect (FCD) models. Additional ingrowth models including transcortical and segmental defects, spinal fusions, and calvarial defects were also used with various animals based on the study goals. Quantitative outcome measures determined via histomorphometry including ''bone ingrowth'' (range: 3.92–53.4% for rabbit/sheep FCD) and bone‐implant contact (range: 9.9–59.7% for rabbit/sheep FCD) were the most common. Studies also used 3D imaging to report outcomes such as bone volume fraction (BV/TV, range: 4.4–61.1% for rabbit/sheep FCD), and push‐out testing for outcomes such as maximum removal force (range: 46.6–3092 N for rabbit/sheep FCD). Though there were many commonalities among the study methods, we also found significant heterogeneity in the outcome terms and definitions. The considerable diversity in testing and reporting may no longer be necessary considering the reported success of AM pTi across all model types and the ample literature supporting the rabbit and sheep as suitable small and large animal models, respectively. Ultimately, more standardized animal models and reporting of bone ingrowth for porous AM materials will be useful for future studies.

show abstract

Influence of Electron Beam Melting Manufactured Implants on Ingrowth and Shear Strength in an Ovine Model

Cited by 50 publications

References 21 publications

Laser and electron‐beam powder‐bed additive manufacturing of metallic implants: A review on processes, materials and designs

Laser and electron‐beam powder‐bed additive manufacturing of metallic implants: A review on processes, materials and designs

Fortifying the Bone-Implant Interface Part 2: An In Vivo Evaluation of 3D-Printed and TPS-Coated Triangular Implants

A systematic review of preclinical in vivo testing of 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V for orthopedic applications, part I: Animal models and bone ingrowth outcome measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About