4.4 Article

Evidence of structural cavities in 3D printed acetabular cups for total hip arthroplasty

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.34520

关键词

3D printing; acetabular cups; additive manufacturing; orthopedic implants; structural cavities

资金

  1. Rosetrees Trust
  2. Stoneygate Trust
  3. RNOH Charity
  4. Maurice Hatter Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of three-dimensional (3D) printing to manufacture off-the-shelf titanium acetabular cups for hip arthroplasty has increased; however, the impact of this manufacturing technology is yet not fully understood. Although several studies have described the presence of structural cavities in 3D printed parts, there has been no analysis of full postproduction acetabular components. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of 3D printing on the material structure of acetabular implants, first comparing different designs of 3D printed cups, second comparing 3D printed with conventionally manufactured cups. Two of the 3D printed cups were produced using electron beam melting (EBM), one using laser rapid manufacturing (LRM). The investigation was performed using X-ray microcomputed tomography, imaging both the entire cups and samples sectioned from different regions of each cup. All 3D printed cups showed evidence of structural cavities; these were uniformly distributed in the volume of the samples and exhibited a prevalent spherical shape. The LRM-manufactured cup had significantly higher cavity density (p = .0286), with a median of 21 cavities/mm(3) compared to 3.5 cavities/mm(3) for EBM cups. However, the cavity size was similar, with a median of 20 mu m (p = .7385). The conventional cups showed a complete absence of distinguishable cavities. The presence of cavities is a known limitation of the 3D printing technology; however, it is noteworthy that we found them in orthopedic implants used in patients. Although this may impact their mechanical properties, to date, 3D printed cups have not been reported to encounter such failures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据