Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
FIGURE 11.11
Cold crushing strength of HG0, HG2, and HG4 specimens 3D-printed at layer thicknesses of 100, 125, and 175
m
m
with SBS/CBS ratio of 100/400%.
11.7
CONCLUSIONS
Metals still form the bulk of primary bone substitute materials in the orthopedic industry. Interest in
metal implants will remain strong in the future, especially for senior patients. The fabrication of metal
implants is costly, but with new developments in the AM field, manufacturability may become easier.
Attention has been focused on the use of bioceramics in the fabrication of bone substitutes due to their
biochemical properties. To improve on the mechanical properties of bioceramics, polymer matrix com-
posites are typically used in various AM approaches. Owing to the high degree of similarity between
bone microstructure as a nanocomposite, biocompatible nanocomposites are also arousing interest in
bone regenerative medicine and have been employed using AM approaches. Overall, AM methodolo-
gies offer the possibility of producing complex bone substitute implants, specifically for load bearing
applications, with a complex 3D external shape, and intricate porous internal architecture. The exten-
sive ongoing research in the field of materials and manufacturing methodologies suggests that there are
still barriers that need to be overcome to achieve consistently reliable and safe substitutes in regenerat-
ing or augmenting bone function.
REFERENCES
Alge, D.L. et al., 2012. Poly(propylene fumarate) reinforced dicalcium phosphate dihydrate cement composites for
bone tissue engineering.
Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A
, 100(7), pp. 1792-802. Available at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22489012
.
[Accessed June 15, 2012].
Alvarez, K. & Nakajima, H., 2009. Metallic Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration.
Materials
, 2(3), pp. 790-832.
Available at:
http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/2/3/790/
.
[Accessed May 27, 2014].
Search WWH ::
Custom Search