ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Influence of Processing Parameters on Additively Manufactured Architected Cellular Metals: Emphasis on Biomedical Applications.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Additive manufacturing for Dentistry: A comprehensive review of techniques and applications.Progress in materials science · 2026Article
- Advanced Numerical Modeling of Powder Bed Fusion: From Physics-Based Simulations to AI-Augmented Digital Twins.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Next-generation craniomaxillofacial implants for reconstructive surgery: balancing biomechanics, biocompatibility, and bioactivity.International journal of oral science · 2026Review
- The Impact of As-Built Surface Characteristics of Selective-Laser-Melted Ti-6Al-4V on Early Osteoblastic Response for Potential Dental Applications.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) has emerged as a transformative additive manufacturing technique for fabricating architected cellular metallic structures, offering tailored properties for diverse biomedical applications. These structures are particularly well-suited for bone implants, scaffolds, and other load-bearing medical devices due to their ability to achieve lightweight designs, enhanced mechanical properties, and customized geometries. However, the complex interactions between LPBF process parameters and the resulting structural and mechanical properties pose significant challenges in achieving the precision and reliability required for clinical applications. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the effects of LPBF process parameters, including laser power, scanning speed, and layer thickness, on key attributes such as dimensional accuracy, density, surface roughness, and microstructure. Their influence on the mechanical performance, including strength, fatigue resistance, and functional properties, is critically examined, with specific attention to biomedical relevance. The impact of lattice design factors, such as topology, unit cell size, and orientation, is also discussed, underscoring their role in optimizing biocompatibility and structural integrity for medical applications. Challenges such as surface defects, geometric inaccuracies, and microstructural inconsistencies are highlighted as key barriers to the broader adoption of LPBF in biomedical fields. Future perspectives focus on advancing LPBF technologies through process optimization and integration with advanced computational tools, such as machine learning, to enable efficient manufacturing of complex, patient-specific architectures. By addressing these challenges, LPBF has the potential to revolutionize the development of next-generation biomaterials, tailored to meet evolving clinical needs and improve patient outcomes.
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.