ArticleJOR spine2024
An additively manufactured model for preclinical testing of cervical devices.
Article in JOR spine, 2024. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Composite models have become commonplace for the assessment of fixation and stability of total joint replacements; however, there are no comparable models for the cervical spine to evaluate fixation. The goal of this study was to create the framework for a tunable non-homogeneous model of cervical vertebral body by identifying the relationships between strength, in-fill density, and lattice structure and creating a final architectural framework for specific strengths to be applied to the model. Methods: The range of material properties for cervical spine were identified from literature. Using additive manufacturing software, rectangular prints with three lattice structures, gyroid, triangle, zig-zag, and a range of in-fill densities were 3D-printed. The compressive and shear strengths for all combinations were calculated in the axial and coronal planes. Eleven unique vertebral regions were selected to represent the distribution of density. Each bone density was converted to strength and subsequently correlated to the lattice structure and in-fill density with the desired material properties. Finally, a complete cervical vertebra model was 3D-printed to ensure sufficient print quality. Results: Materials testing identified a relationship between in-fill densities and strength for all lattice structures. The axial compressive strength of the gyroid specimens ranged from 1.5 MPa at 10% infill to 31.3 MPa at 100% infill and the triangle structure ranged from 2.7 MPa at 10% infill to 58.4 MPa at 100% infill. Based on these results, a cervical vertebra model was created utilizing cervical cancellous strength values and the corresponding in-fill density and lattice structure combination. This model was then printed with 11 different in-fill densities ranging from 33% gyroid to 84% triangle to ensure successful integration of the non-homogeneous in-fill densities and lattice structures. Conclusions: The findings from this study introduced a framework for using additive manufacturing to create a tunable, customizable biomimetic model of a cervical vertebra.
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.