Article3D printing in medicine2024
Comparative analysis of conventionally and additively manufactured acetabular shells from a single manufacturer.
Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe Trident II Tritanium acetabular shell is additively manufactured (3D printed), based on the established Trident 'I' Tritanium shell, produced using conventional methods; this study characterised their differences.
methodsWe obtained 5 Trident I (T1) and 5 Trident II (T2) shells sized 52 mm, 54 mm (n = 3) and 60 mm. We measured their: mass, shell-liner engaging surface roughness, roundness, wall thickness, the depth of the bone-facing porous layer, porosity, and the number, volume and location of structural voids.
resultsThe mass varied by up to 13.44 g. The T1 and T2 shells had a median internal roughness of 0.18 μm and 0.43 μm, (p < 0.001) and the median departure from roundness was 6.9 μm and 8.9 μm, (p < 0.001). The 54 mm and 60 mm T2 shell walls were 37% and 29% thinner than their T1 counterparts (p < 0.01). The T2 shells had irregular porous structures, shallower in depth by 11-27% (p < 0.001) than T1 shells, which had repeating mesh units; the overall porosity was comparable (54%). All T2 shells had between 115 and 3415 structural voids, compared with two T1 shells containing 21 and 31 voids. There was no difference in the depth of the porous layer for the 54 mm T2 shells (p = 0.068), whilst T1 shells did show variability (p < 0.01). Both groups showed a variability in surface roughness and roundness (p < 0.01).
conclusionThis is the first study to compare shells from a single manufacturer, produced using conventional and additive methods. This data will help interpret the performance of the 3D printed Trident II as longer-term clinical data is generated.
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.