Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30191161›Full record

Article3D printing and additive manufacturing2017

Osseointegration of Coarse and Fine Textured Implants Manufactured by Electron Beam Melting and Direct Metal Laser Sintering.

David S Ruppert, Ola L A Harrysson, Denis J Marcellin-Little, Sam Abumoussa, Laurence E Dahners, Paul S Weinhold

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 3D printing and additive manufacturing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

David S RuppertDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina-NC State University, Chapel Hill-Raleigh, North Carolina.
Ola L A HarryssonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina-NC State University, Chapel Hill-Raleigh, North Carolina.
Denis J Marcellin-LittleDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina-NC State University, Chapel Hill-Raleigh, North Carolina.
Sam AbumoussaDepartment of Orthopaedics School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Laurence E DahnersDepartment of Orthopaedics School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Paul S WeinholdDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina-NC State University, Chapel Hill-Raleigh, North Carolina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osseointegrated implants transfer loads from native bone to a synthetic joint and can also function transdermally to provide a stable connection between the skeleton and the prostheses, eliminating many problems associated with socket prostheses. Additive manufacturing provides a cost-effective means to create patient-specific implants and allows for customized textures for integration with bone and other tissues. Our objective was to compare the osseointegration strength of two primary additive manufacturing methods of producing textured implants: electron beam melting (EBM) (mean Ra = 23 μm) and direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) (mean Ra = 10 μm). Due to spatial resolution, DMLS can produce surfaces with a roughness comparable to EBM. Two cohorts of Sprague-Dawley rats received bilateral, titanium implants in their distal femurs and were followed for 4 weeks. The first-cohort animals received EBM implants transcortically in one femur and a DMLS implant in the contralateral femur. The second cohort received DMLS implants (either fine textured or coarse textured to mimic EBM) in the intramedullary canal of each femur. Osseointegration was evaluated through mechanical testing and micro-computed tomography (bone volume fraction [BV/TV] and bone-implant contact [BIC]). The fixation strength of coarse textured implants provided superior interlocking relative to fine textured implants without affecting BV/TV or BIC in both cohorts. Coarse EBM implants in a transcortical model demonstrated an 85% increase in removal torque relative to the fine DMLS textured implants. The thrust load in the intramedullary model saw a 35% increase from fine to coarse DMLS implants.

Indexed as

additive manufactured implantsbone-implant interfacedirect metal laser sinteringelectron beam meltingosseointegration of transcutaneous prostheses

Identifiers

PMID30191161
PMCPMC6114714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.