Exploring for the optimal structural design for the 3D-printing technology for cranial reconstruction: a biomechanical and histological study comparison of solid vs. porous structure
- 851 Downloads
Cranioplasty for recovering skull defects carries the risk for a number of complications. Various materials are used, including autologous bone graft, metallic materials, and non-metallic materials, each of which has advantages and disadvantages. If the use of autologous bone is not feasible, those artificial materials also have constraints in the case of complex anatomy and/or irregular defects.
Material and methods
This study used metal 3D-printing technology to overcome these existing drawbacks and analyze the clinical and mechanical performance requirements. To find an optimal structure that satisfied the structural and mechanical stability requirements, we evaluated biomechanical stability using finite element analysis (FEA) and mechanical testing. To ensure clinical applicability, the model was subjected to histological evaluation. Each specimen was implanted in the femur of a rabbit and was evaluated using histological measurements and push-out test.
Results and Conclusion
We believe that our data will provide the basis for future applications of a variety of unit structures and further clinical trials and research, as well as the direction for the study of other patient-specific implants.
Keywords3D-printing Cranioplasty Additive manufacturing Biomechanical strength Bone-implant contact Bone induction rate
This study was supported by a faculty research grant of Yonsei University College of Medicine for 2016 (6-2016-0075). Special thanks to Su-Heon Woo (School of Biomechanical Engineering, Inje University, Gimhae, Korea; Medyssey Co, Ltd. Jecheon, Korea) for his contribution.
Compliance with ethical standards
All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
There is no conflict of interest.
- 2.Kaufui VW, Aldo Hernandez (2012) A review of additive manufacturing. International Scholarly Research Network, ISRN Mechanical EngineeringGoogle Scholar
- 6.Murr LE, Gaytan SM, Medina F, Lopez H, Martinez E, Machado BI, Hernandez DH, Martinez L, Lopez MI, Wicker RB, Bracke J (2010) Next-generation biomedical implants using additive manufacturing of complex, cellular and functional mesh arrays. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 368:1999–2032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.DeFelice S (2014) Additive manufacturing produces polymeric cranial implants. Adv Mater Process 172:36–37Google Scholar