Iranian Journal of Orthopedic Surgery

The Effect of Pore Size in 3D-Printed Porous Titanium Implant on Osseo-Integration: (An in Vivo Study)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Ghazaleh Moradkhani 1
Morad Karimpour 2
S Mahmoud Taheri 3

1 School of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant professor, School of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

3 Professor, School of Engineering Science, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.22034/ijos.2022.334772.1020
Abstract
Background: Porous titanium structures have recently gained considerable popularity among researchers in studies examining bone ingrowth and osseointegration. Porous implants fabricated using triply periodic minimal surface design (TPMS) and designed through 3D printing techniques exhibited remarkable mechanical strength and cell viability compared to conventional implants. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of pore size of titanium implants with gyroid structure.
Methods: This study was conducted on Adult male Wistar rats weighing 350 and 450 g for the animal study by the calvarial defect model to investigate bone regeneration. Three disk-shaped implants were designed using a gyroid structure with pore sizes of 400, 500, and 600 micrometers. All implants were made by additive manufacturing (Selective Laser Melting) using Ti6Al4V medical-grade powder. Animals were sacrificed after 12 weeks, the skin was removed from the calvaria, and the implants were removed for histological examination.
Results: Gyroid structures had a high surface-to-volume ratio and pore connectivity, facilitating cell adhesion and ossification. A significant amount of bone ingrowth was observed in the 400 mm group, so that bone penetrated into pores significantly more than in the other groups. However, the vascularization was more pronounced in the 600 μm group than in the other groups.
Conclusion: According to the results, there was a positive effect of porosity in titanium implants in encouraging bone ingrowth. The porosity size of 400 μm was more suitable for the differentiation and proliferation of bone cells and thus the osseointegration in porous titanium implants with gyroid structure.

Keywords

Osseointegration
Bone Regeneration
Titanium
Prostheses and Implants
Bone-Implant Interface
1.                   Yuan L, Songlin D, Cuie W. Additive manufacturing technology for porous metal implant applications and triple minimal surface structures: A review. Bioact Mater .2018; 4:56-70. PMID: 30596158 PMCID: PMC6305839 DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2018.12.003.
2.                   Williams DF. There is no such thing as a biocompatible material. Biomaterials. 2014; 35(38):10009-10014. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.08.035 PMID: 25263686.
3.                   Bundy K.J. Biomaterials and the chemical environment of the body. Joint Replacement Technology. Woodhead Publishing. 56-80, 2008. DOI:10.1533/9781845694807.1.56
4.                   Frost H M.  Wolff's Law and bone's structural adaptations to mechanical usage: an overview for clinicians. Angle Orthod. 1994; 64(3):175-88. PMID: 8060014 DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1994)064<0175: WLABSA>2.0.CO; 2.    
5.                   Sumner D R.  Long-term implant fixation and stress-shielding in total hip replacement. J Biomech. 2015; 18; 48(5):797-800. PMID: 25579990 DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.12.021.
6.                   Lopez-Heredia MA, Sohier J, Gaillard C, Quillard S, Dorget M, et al. Rapid prototyped porous titanium coated with calcium phosphate as a scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2008; 29(17):2608-2015. PMID: 18358527 DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.02.021.
7.                   Ryan GE, Pandit AS, Apatsidis DP. et al. Porous titanium scaffolds fabricated using a rapid prototyping and powder metallurgy technique. Biomaterials. 2008; 29(27):3625-3635. PMID: 18556060 DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.05.032.
8.                   Dabrowski B, Swieszkowski W, Godlinski D, Kurzydlowski KJ, et al. Highly porous titanium scaffolds for orthopaedic applications. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2010; 95(1):53-61. PMID: 20690174 DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.31682.
9.                   Ghorbani F, Zamanian A. Oriented microstructure in neural tissue engineering: a review. J Tissue Sci Eng. 2016; 7(3):182. DOI:10.4172/2157-7552.1000182.
10.                Zhang J, Zhao SH, Zhu M, Zhu Y, Zhang Y, et al. 3D-printed magnetic Fe 3 O 4/MBG/PCL composite scaffolds with multifunctionality of bone regeneration, local anticancer drug delivery and hyperthermia. J Mater Chem B. 2014; 2(43):7583-7595. PMID: 32261896 DOI: 10.1039/c4tb01063a.
11.                Lord E, Mackay AL, Ranganathan S. New geometries for new materials. Cambridge University Press, 2006. 
12.                Sychov M, Lebedev LA, Dyachenko SV, Nefedova LA. Mechanical properties of energy-absorbing structures with triply periodic minimal surface topology. Acta Astronautica. 2018;150:81-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.12.034.
13.                Yoo DJ. Advanced porous scaffold design using multi-void triply periodic minimal surface models with high surface area to volume ratios. Int J Precis Eng Manufactur. 2014; 15:1657–1666.
14.                Aremu AO, Brennan-Craddock JPJ, Panesar A, Ashcroft I, et al. A voxel-based method of constructing and skinning conformal and functionally graded lattice structures suitable for additive manufacturing. Addit Manufactur. 2016; 1-13.  DOI: 1016/j.addma.2016.10.006.
15.                Zhao M, Liu F, Fu G, Zhang DZ, Zhang T, et al. Improved mechanical properties and energy absorption of BCC lattice structures with triply periodic minimal surfaces fabricated by SLM. Materials. 2018; 11(12):2411. PMID: 30501050 PMCID: PMC6317040 DOI: 10.3390/ma11122411.
16.                Chang B, Song W, Han T, Yan J, Li F, et al. Influence of pore size of porous titanium fabricated by vacuum diffusion bonding of titanium meshes on cell penetration and bone ingrowth. Acta Biomater. 2016; 33:311-321. PMID: 26802441 DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2016.01.022.
17.                Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials. 2005; 26(27):5474-91. PMID: 15860204 DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.002.
18.                Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials. 2005; 26(27):5474-91. PMID: 15860204 DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.002.
19.                Zadpoor AA. Bone tissue regeneration: the role of scaffold geometry. Biomater Sci. 2015; 3(2):231-45. PMID: 26218114 DOI: 10.1039/c4bm00291a.
20.                Bouët G, Marchat D, Cruel M, Malaval L, Vico L. In vitro three-dimensional bone tissue models: from cells to controlled and dynamic environment. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2015; 21(1):133-56. PMID: 25116032 DOI: 10.1089/ten.TEB.2013.0682.
21.                Dall’Ava L. Hothi H. Henckel J. Di Laura A. Shearing P. et al. Characterization of dimensional, morphological and morphometric features of retrieved 3D-printed acetabular cups for hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020; 15(1):1-2. PMID: 32306995 PMCID: PMC7169042 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-020-01665-y.
22.                Wu SH, Li Y, Zhang YQ, Li XK, Yuan CF, Hao YL, Zhang ZY. et al. Porous titanium‐6 aluminum‐4 vanadium cage has better osseointegration and less micromotion than a poly‐ether‐ether‐ketone cage in sheep vertebral fusion. Artif Organs. 2013; 37(12):191-201. PMID: 24147953 DOI: 10.1111/aor.12153.
23.                Eltlhawy B, Fouda N, Eldesouky I. Numerical Evaluation of a Porous Tibial-Knee Implant using Gyroid Structure. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2022; 1; 12(1):75-82. PMID: 35155295 PMCID: PMC8819261 DOI: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2005-1116.
24.                Faizan A, Bhowmik-Stoker M, Alipit V, Kirk AE, Krebs VE, Harwin SF. et al. Development and verification of novel porous titanium metaphyseal cones for revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 1;32(6):1946-53.
25.                Ataee A, Li Y. Fraser D, Song G, Wen C. Anisotropic Ti-6Al-4V gyroid scaffolds manufactured by electron beam melting (EBM) for bone implant applications.  Materials & Design. 2018; 345-354. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.10.040.
26.                Alvarez K, Nakajima H. Metallic scaffolds for bone regeneration. Materials. 2009; 23; 2(3):790-832. doi: 10.3390/ma2030790.
27.                Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials. 2005; 1; 26(27):5474-91. PMID: 15860204. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.002.
28.                Patra S, Young V.  A review of 3D printing techniques and the future in biofabrication of bioprinted tissue. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2016; 74(2):93-8. PMID: 27193609 DOI: 10.1007/s12013-016-0730-0.
29.                Frosch KH, Barvencik F, Viereck V, Lohmann CH, Dresing K, et al. Growth behavior, matrix production, and gene expression of human osteoblasts in defined cylindrical titanium channels. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2004; 1; 68(2):325-34. PMID: 14704974 DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.20010.
30.                Zaharin HA. Abdul Rani AM. Azam FI. Ginta TL. Sallih N. et al. Effect of unit cell type and pore size on porosity and mechanical behavior of additively manufactured Ti6Al4V scaffolds. Materials. 2018; 28; 11(12):2402. PMID: 30487419 PMCID: PMC6317238 DOI: 10.3390/ma11122402.
 

Home

Submit Manuscript

Contact Us