4.4 Article

Analysis of the Mechanical Behavior of a Titanium Scaffold With a Repeating Unit-Cell Substructure

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.31361

Keywords

titanium scaffold; mechanical analysis; finite element analysis; unit-cell modeling; computer aided design; rapid prototyping

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Titanium scaffolds with controlled microarchitecture have been developed for load bearing orthopedic applications. The controlled microarchitecture refers to a repeating array of unit-cells, composed of sintered titanium powder, which make up the scaffold structure. The objective of this current research was to characterize the mechanical performance of three scaffolds with increasing porosity, using finite element analysis (FEA) and to compare the results with experimental data. Scaffolds were scanned using microcomputed tomography and FEA models were generated from the resulting computer models. Macroscale and unit-cell models of the scaffolds were created. The material properties of the sintered titanium powders were first evaluated in mechanical tests and the data used in the FEA. The macroscale and unit-cell FEA models proved to be a good predictor of Young's modulus and yield strength. Although macroscale models showed similar failure patterns and an expected trend in UCS, strain at UCS did not compare well with experimental data. Since a rapid prototyping method was used to create the scaffolds, the original CAD geometries of the scaffold were also evaluated using FEA but they did not reflect the mechanical properties of the physical scaffolds. This indicates that at present, determining the actual geometry of the scaffold through computed tomography imaging is important. Finally, a fatigue analysis was performed on the scaffold to simulate the loading conditions it would experience as a spinal interbody fusion device. (C) 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 90B: 894-906, 2009

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available