Application of three-dimensional printing technology to the customized design of spinal implants
Author:
Yang Zecheng1, Zhang Hengwei2, Liu Xiaowei2, Qiu Yujin2
Affiliation:
1. Department of Clinical Medicine , Weifang Medical University , Weifang , Shandong , , China . 2. Department of Spinal Orthopaedics , Affiliated Hospital of Weifang Medical University , Weifang , Shandong , , China .
Abstract
Abstract
In recent years, the field of 3D printing technology has experienced rapid advancements, notably expanding its application within the medical sector. This study focuses on the custom design of 3D-printed spinal implants, specifically examining porous interbody fusion products. It integrates considerations of mechanical strength and bone ingrowth to establish a finite element model of porous interbody fusion, subsequently conducting topology optimization to design three distinct types of spinal interbody fusion implants. Analytical investigations were carried out on the stress and displacement responses of these three implant types under compressive loading. Furthermore, a detailed stress analysis was conducted on implants varying in porosity, length, and screw angle of the bone graft to assess the performance characteristics of the porous interbody fusion devices. Results indicated that the Type C implant exhibited superior performance, demonstrating a stress reduction to 89.21 MPa and a displacement change of 0.006 mm, optimally at a 60% porosity level. Adjustments in the lengths and screw clamp angles of the splint ensured that the maximal stress experienced by each vertebra remained below the yield limits of both cortical and cancellous bone, thus preventing vertebral damage. This paper presents a comparative analysis of three types of porous interbody fusion devices, providing substantial data support and a theoretical framework that can inform the future development of fusion products.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Reference22 articles.
1. Pezzotti, G., Marin, E., Adachi, T., Lerussi, F., & Mazda, O. (2018). Incorporating si3n4 into peek to produce antibacterial, osteocondutive, and radiolucent spinal implants. Macromolecular Bioscience, 18(6). 2. Venla, S., Anna K., H., Luise, M., Katharina, J., Lena, B., & Katja A., Lüders, et al. (2023). Scoliosis treatment with growth-friendly spinal implants (gfsi) relates to low bone mineral mass in children with spinal muscular atrophy. Journal of pediatric orthopaedics. 3. Luca, A., Gallazzi, E., Vecchi, E. D., Marco Brayda-Bruno, & Bidossi, A. (2020). Bacterial adhesion on spinal implants: an in vitro study of “hot spots”. Journal of Orthopaedic Research(12). 4. Muemlller, B. S., Ryang, Y. M., Oechsner, M., Duemlsberg, M., Meyer, B., & Combs, S. E., et al. (2018). The dosimetric impact of uncertainties in hu assignment of spinal implants for photon and proton rt: carbon vs titanium screw systems. Medical Physics(6), 45. 5. Poel, R., Belosi, F. M., Albertini, F., Walser, M., & Weber, D. C. (2019). Titanium vs cfr-peek spinal implants in pbs proton therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 105(1), E695-E696.
|
|