Design of Metallic Lattices for Bone Implants by Additive Manufacturing

  • Daniel BarbaEmail author
  • Roger C. Reed
  • Enrique Alabort
Conference paper
Part of the The Minerals, Metals & Materials Series book series (MMMS)


A broad range of synthetic trabecular-like metallic lattices is 3D printed in Ti-6Al-4V by SLM. The aim is to propose new conceptual types of implant structures for superior biomechanical matching and osseo-integration: synthetic bone. Systematic evaluation is then carried out: (i) their accuracy is characterised using HR X-ray tomography, to assess deviations from the original geometrical design intent and (ii) the mechanical properties—stiffness and strength—are experimentally measured and compared. Finally, this new knowledge is synthesised in a conceptual framework in the form of implant design maps, to define the processing conditions of bone tailored substitutes. The design criteria emphasise (a) the bone stiffness matching, (b) preferred range of pore structure for bone ingrowth, (c) manufacturability, and (d) choice of inherent materials properties for durable implants. The power of this framework is demonstrated in the design of a prototype spine fusion device.


Lattice structures Topological optimisation Mechanical properties of AM materials Manufacturability 


  1. 1.
    Horn TJ, Harryson OLA (2016) Overview of current additive manufacturing technologies and selected applications. Sci Prog 95:255–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Neugebauer R, Mueller B, Gebauer M, Töppel T (2011) Additive manufacturing boosts efficiency of heat transfer components. Assembly Autom 31:344–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang X, Xu S, Zhou S, Xu W, Leary M, Choong P, Quian M, Bandt M, Xie YM (2016) Topological design and additive manufacturing of porous metals for bone scaffolds and orthopaedic implants. A Rev Biomater 83:127–141Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li G, Wang L, Pan W, Yang F, Jiang W, Wu X, Kong X, Dai K, Hao Y (2016) In vitro and in vivo study of additive manufactured porous Ti-6Al-4V scaffolds for repairing bone defects. Sci Rep 6:34072Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wauthle R, Vrancken B, Beynaerts B, Jorissen K, Schrooten J, Kruth J-P, Van Humbeeck J (2015) Effects of build orientation and heat treatment on the microstructure and mechanical properties of selective laser melted Ti-6Al-4V lattice structures. Add Manuf 5:77–84Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gorny B, Niendorfa T, Lackmann J, Thoene M, Troester T, Maier HJ (2011) In situ characterization of the deformation and failure behavior of non-stochastic porous structures processed by selective laser melting. Mater Sci Eng A 15:7962–7967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simonelli M, Tse Y, Tuck C (2016) Effect of the build orientation on the mechanical properties and fracture modes of SLM Ti-6Al-4V. Mater Sci Eng A 616:11; Zhao X et al Mater Des 95:21–31Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Bael S, Kerckhofs G, Moesen M, Pyka G, Schrooten J, Kruth JP (2011) Micro-CT-based improvement of geometrical and mechanical controllability of selective laser melted Ti-6Al-4V porous structures. Mater Sci Eng A 528:7423–7431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang D, Yang Y, Liu R, Xiao D, Sun J (2013) Study on the designing rules and processability of porous structure based on selective laser melting (SLM). J Mater Process Technol 213:1734–1742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Bael S, Chai YC, Truscello S, Moesen M, Kerckhofs G, Van Oosterwyck H, Kruth JP, Schrooten J (2012) The effect of pore geometry on the in vitro biological behavior of human periosteum-derived cells seeded on selective laser-melted Ti-6Al-4V bone scaffolds. Acta Biomater 8:2824–2834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yan C, Hao L, Hussein A, Young P (2015) Ti-6Al-4V triply periodic minimal surface structures for bone implants fabricated via selective laser melting. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 51:61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tan XP, Tan YJ, Chow CS, Tor SB, Yeong WY (2017) Metallic powder-bed based 3D printing of cellular scaffolds for orthopaedic implants: a state-of-the-art review on manufacturing, topological design, mechanical properties and biocompatibility. Mater Sci Eng C 76:1328–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Melancon D, Bagheri Z, Johnston R, Liu L, Tanzer M, Pasini D (2017) Mechanical characterization of structurally porous biomaterials built via additive manufacturing: experiments, predictive models, and design maps for load-bearing bone replacement implants. Acta Biomater 63:350–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Autodesk, Netfabb-ultimate (2019).
  16. 16.
    Materialise, Materialise magics (2019).
  17. 17.
    Egan PF, Gonella VC, Engensperger M, Ferguson SJ, Shea K (2017) Computationally designed lattices with tuned properties for tissue engineering using 3D printing. PLoS One 12:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kadkhodapour J, Montazerian H, Darabi A, Anaraki A, Ahmadi S, Zadpoor A, Schmauder S (2015) Failure mechanisms of additively manufactured porous biomaterials: effects of porosity and type of unit cell. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 50:180–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bobbert F, Lietaert K, Eftekhari A, Pouran B, Ahmadi S, Weinans H, Zadpoor A (2017) Additively manufactured metallic porous biomaterials based on minimal surfaces: a unique combination of topological, mechanical, and mass transport properties. Acta Biomater 53:572–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Al-Ketan O, Rowshan R, Abu Al-Rub RK (2018) Topology-mechanical property relationship of 3D printed strut, skeletal, and sheet based periodic metallic cellular materials. Add Manuf 19:167–183Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alabort E, Barba D, Reed R (2019) Design of metallic bone by additive manufacturing. Scripta MaterGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu F, Mao Z, Zhang P, Zhang DZ, Jiang J, Ma Z (2018) Functionally graded porous scaffolds in multiple patterns: new design method, physical and mechanical properties. Mater Des 160:849–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zadpoor (2015) Bone tissue regeneration: the role of scaffold geometry. Biomater Sci 3:231–245Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barba D, Alabort E, Reed RC (2019) Synthetic bone: design by additive manufacturing. Acta BiomaterGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    S.S.IP, Simpleware—scan ip (2019).
  26. 26.
    Zhang X-Y, Fang G, Leeang S, Zadpoor AA, Zhou J (2018) Topological design, permeability and mechanical behavior of additively manufactured functionally graded porous metallic biomaterials. Acta Biomater 84:437–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen Q, Thouas GA (2015) Metallic implant biomaterials. Mater Sci Eng R Rep 87:1–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Takamura K, Hayashi K, Ishinishi N, Yamada T, Sugioka Y (1994) Evaluation of carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity associated with orthopedic implants in mice. J Biomed Mater Res 28:583–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alrabeah GO, Brett P, Knowles JC, Petridis H (2017) The effect of metal ions released from different dental implant-abutment couples on osteoblast function and secretion of bone resorbing mediators. J Dent 66:91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Barba
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Roger C. Reed
    • 1
    • 3
  • Enrique Alabort
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of MaterialsUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of Aerospace MaterialsETSIAE, Polytechnic University of MadridMadridSpain
  3. 3.Department of Engineering ScienceUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  4. 4.OxMet TechnologiesYarntonUK

Personalised recommendations