ReviewPolymers2025
Lattice Structures in Additive Manufacturing for Biomedical Applications: A Systematic Review.
Review in Polymers, 2025. 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.
- Optimization of FDM Printing Parameters for Enhanced Compressive Performance of 3D-Printed PLA/CF Composite Lattice Structures.Polymers · 2026Article
- Modular stayed 3D-lattice structures manufactured by MEX-AM: buckling behaviour and energy absorption.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Biomaterial Strategies for Three-Dimensional Bioprinting and Drug Delivery Application.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- 3D & 4D Printing-In Engineering Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study offers a systematic review of the current state of research on lattice structures manufactured by additive technologies for biomedical applications, with the aim of identifying common patterns, such as the use of triply periodic minimal surfaces (TPMS) for bone scaffolds, as well as technological gaps and future research opportunities. Employing the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology, the review process ensures methodological rigor and replicability across the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion phases. Additionally, PRISMA was tailored by prioritizing technical databases and engineering-specific inclusion criteria, thereby aligning the methodology with the scope of this field. In recent years, a substantial surge in interdisciplinary research has underscored the promise of architected porous structures in enhancing mechanical compatibility, fostering osseointegration, and facilitating personalized medicine. A growing body of literature has emerged that explores the optimization of geometric features to replicate the behavior of biological tissues, particularly bone. Additive manufacturing (AM) has played a pivotal role in enabling the fabrication of complex geometries that are otherwise unachievable by conventional methods. The applications of lattice structures range from permanent load-bearing implants, commonly manufactured through selective laser melting (SLM), to temporary scaffolds for tissue regeneration, often produced with extrusion-based processes such as fused filament fabrication (FFF) or direct ink writing (DIW). Notwithstanding these advances, challenges persist in areas such as long-term in vivo validation, standardization of mechanical and biological testing, such as ISO standards for fatigue testing, and integration into clinical workflows.
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.