Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35386359›Full record

ReviewBioactive materials2022

Additively manufactured metallic biomaterials.

Elham Davoodi, Hossein Montazerian, Anooshe Sadat Mirhakimi, Masoud Zhianmanesh, Osezua Ibhadode, Shahriar Imani Shahabad, Reza Esmaeilizadeh, Einollah Sarikhani, Sahar Toorandaz, Shima A Sarabi and 6 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Bioactive materials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Three-Dimensional Printing in Pediatric Orthopaedics: Cost Analysis and Emerging Applications.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Novel synthesis of AlJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

16 authors.

Elham DavoodiMulti-Scale Additive Manufacturing (MSAM) Laboratory, Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada.
Hossein MontazerianDepartment of Bioengineering, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Anooshe Sadat MirhakimiDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran.
Masoud ZhianmaneshSchool of Biomedical Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia.
Osezua IbhadodeMulti-Scale Additive Manufacturing (MSAM) Laboratory, Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada.
Shahriar Imani ShahabadMulti-Scale Additive Manufacturing (MSAM) Laboratory, Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada.
Reza EsmaeilizadehMulti-Scale Additive Manufacturing (MSAM) Laboratory, Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada.
Einollah SarikhaniDepartment of Nanoengineering, Jacobs School of Engineering, University of California, San Diego, California 92093, United States.
Sahar ToorandazMulti-Scale Additive Manufacturing (MSAM) Laboratory, Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada.
Shima A SarabiMechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Rohollah NasiriTerasaki Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Los Angeles, California 90024, United States.
Yangzhi ZhuTerasaki Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Los Angeles, California 90024, United States.
Javad KadkhodapourDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Tehran 16785-163, Iran.
Bingbing LiDepartment of Manufacturing Systems Engineering and Management, California State University, Northridge, California 91330, United States.
Ali KhademhosseiniTerasaki Institute for Biomedical Innovation, Los Angeles, California 90024, United States.
Ehsan ToyserkaniMulti-Scale Additive Manufacturing (MSAM) Laboratory, Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada.

Funding

3D printed muscle-bone organ implant for treating large injuriesR01AR073135 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI DOKMECI, MEHMET REMZI, JANG, HAE LIN · 2018 to 2022
$2.2M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR073135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metal additive manufacturing (AM) has led to an evolution in the design and fabrication of hard tissue substitutes, enabling personalized implants to address each patient's specific needs. In addition, internal pore architectures integrated within additively manufactured scaffolds, have provided an opportunity to further develop and engineer functional implants for better tissue integration, and long-term durability. In this review, the latest advances in different aspects of the design and manufacturing of additively manufactured metallic biomaterials are highlighted. After introducing metal AM processes, biocompatible metals adapted for integration with AM machines are presented. Then, we elaborate on the tools and approaches undertaken for the design of porous scaffold with engineered internal architecture including, topology optimization techniques, as well as unit cell patterns based on lattice networks, and triply periodic minimal surface. Here, the new possibilities brought by the functionally gradient porous structures to meet the conflicting scaffold design requirements are thoroughly discussed. Subsequently, the design constraints and physical characteristics of the additively manufactured constructs are reviewed in terms of input parameters such as design features and AM processing parameters. We assess the proposed applications of additively manufactured implants for regeneration of different tissue types and the efforts made towards their clinical translation. Finally, we conclude the review with the emerging directions and perspectives for further development of AM in the medical industry.

Indexed as

Additive manufacturingBiomaterialsMetal implantPorous scaffoldTissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID35386359
PMCPMC8941217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.