ArticleBioMed research international2022
Static and Fatigue Load Bearing Investigation on Porous Structure Titanium Additively Manufactured Anterior Cervical Cages.
Article in BioMed research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Innovative animal models for surgical interventions and implant biocompatibility: a translational perspective.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the static and fatigue behavior of porous and conventional anterior cervical cages. Porous structure titanium anterior cervical cages were manufactured using direct selective laser sintering technique. Four different types of cervical cages were designed and manufactured, among which three designs consist of porous structure (type 1, type 2, and type 3) and manufactured using metal 3D printing. Remaining one design (type 4) was manufactured using conventional machining and did not consist any porous structure. All types of manufactured cages were tested in compression under static and fatigue loading conditions as per ASTM F2077 standard. Static and fatigue subsidence testing was performed using ASTM F2267 standard. Static compression testing results of type 1 and type 4 cages reported higher yield load when compared to the type 2 and type 3 cages. Static subsidence testing results reported almost 11% less subsidence rate for additively manufactured cages than the conventional cages. Fatigue subsidence testing results showed that type 2 and type 3 cages can withstood approximately 21% higher number of cycles before subsidence as compare to the type 1 and type 4 cages. During fatigue testing, all the cages design survived 5 million cycles at the 3000 N loading. For 6000 N and 8000 N, loading rate type 2 and type 3 cages showed lower fatigue life when compared to other cages design. Since fatigue life of type 2 and type 3 cage designs were reported lower than other cages design, it is concluded that the performance of the additively manufactured porous cages can be significantly varied based upon the cage design features.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.