ArticleScientific reports2022
Fabrication of a lattice structure with periodic open pores through three-dimensional printing for bone ingrowth.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovations in Implant Osseointegration: Biomaterials, Surface Engineering, and Translational Strategies.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A · 2026Review
- Infiltration-Assisted Mechanical Strengthening of 3D-Printed Polypropylene Lattice and Thin-Walled Tube Structures.Polymers · 2025Article
- Patient-Specific 3-Dimensional-Printed Orthopedic Implants and Surgical Devices Are Potential Alternatives to Conventional Technology But Require Additional Characterization.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2025Review
- Biocompatibility Evaluation of an Artificial Metallic Bone with Lattice Structure for Reconstruction of Bone Defect.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Investigation of the Mechanical Strength of Artificial Metallic Mandibles with Lattice Structure for Mandibular Reconstruction.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lattice structures for implants can be printed using metal three-dimensional (3D)-printing and used as a porous microstructures to enhance bone ingrowth as orthopedic implants. However, designs and 3D-printed products can vary. Thus, we aimed to investigate whether targeted pores can be consistently obtained despite printing errors. The cube-shaped specimen was printed with one side 15 mm long and a full lattice with a dode-thin structure of 1.15, 1.5, and 2.0 mm made using selective laser melting. Beam compensation was applied, increasing it until the vector was lost. For each specimen, the actual unit size and strut thickness were measured 50 times. Pore size was calculated from unit size and strut thickness, and porosity was determined from the specimen's weight. The actual average pore sizes for 1.15, 1.5, and 2.0 mm outputs were 257.9, 406.2, and 633.6 μm, and volume porosity was 62, 70, and 80%, respectively. No strut breakage or gross deformation was observed in any 3D-printed specimens, and the pores were uniformly fabricated with < 10% standard deviation. The actual micrometer-scaled printed structures were significantly different to the design, but this error was not random. Although the accuracy was low, precision was high for pore cells, so reproducibility was confirmed.
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.