Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37273989›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of bioprinting2023

Flow performance of porous implants with different geometry: Line, surface, and volume structures.

Zhuxun Tang, Yueting Zhou, Lifang Ma, Jian Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of bioprinting, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Zhuxun TangSchool of Aerospace Engineering and Applied Mechanics, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, P.R. China.
Yueting ZhouSchool of Aerospace Engineering and Applied Mechanics, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, P.R. China.
Lifang MaBeijing Key Laboratory of Rehabilitation Technical Aids for Old-Age Disability, National Research Center for Rehabilitation Technical Aids, Beijing, 100176, P.R. China.
Jian LiSchool of Automation, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, 100876, P.R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Additive manufacturing has enormous advantage of personalized adaptation. Particularly, porous implants have been widely used in clinical practice. Porous implant has the advantages and abilities to promote tissue growth and mass transfer, which are closely related to pore morphology. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of three porous structures, i.e., line structure, surface structure, and volume structure, on the flow properties of implants at different porosity. Therefore, a unit cell was selected from each type of structure (oct truss [OT], gyroid [G], and schwarz p [P]) as a typical cell, where OT is a line structure, G is a surface structure, and P is a volume structure. The scaffolds with different porosity of these cells were customized, and the shape parameters were measured and calculated. Then, the flow performance of three different scaffolds in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium was simulated by using computational fluid dynamics, and the flow velocity, permeability, and wall shear stress, which can reflect their biological properties, were calculated and compared. The results showed that the pore shape and porosity of porous implants greatly affected the physical parameters and performance of structures. These findings will contribute to unit cell selection and future performance optimization of porous implants.

Indexed as

Computational fluid dynamicsFlow shear stressFlow velocityPermeabilityPorous implants

Identifiers

PMID37273989
PMCPMC10236350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.