ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Analysis of the anti-subsidence mechanical properties of novel 3D-printed titanium cages compared to conventional titanium cages.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three-dimensional printed artificial vertebral body versus titanium mesh cage and nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 cage in anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion: a retrospective cohort study with a minimum 5-year follow-up.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Observational
- The design and biomechanical study of the 3D-printed implanted cervical vertebral cage.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTitanium cage subsidence remains a common complication following anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion. 3D printing technology can optimize titanium cages, including high geometric matching and unique porous graded structures, providing a better option for improving titanium cage subsidence. This study aims to evaluate the mechanical properties of 3D-printed titanium cages and compare them with those of conventional titanium cages, providing preclinical data for future clinical trials.
methodsThe samples were divided into a 3D-printed titanium cage group and a conventional titanium cage group, with 5 samples in each group. A static compression test was conducted using the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F2077-14 standard to evaluate the stiffness of the titanium cages. A static subsidence test was conducted using the ASTM F2267-04 standard to evaluate the stiffness (K
resultsIn the static compression test, the stiffness of the 3D-printed titanium cage and the conventional titanium cage were (6562.60 ± 390.72) N/mm and (10252.40 ± 704.07) N/mm, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). In the static subsidence test, the stiffness of the 3D-printed titanium cage system and the conventional titanium cage system were (258.60 ± 7.99) N/mm and (221.00 ± 20.36) N/mm, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). Additionally, the stiffness (K
conclusionThe optimized 3D-printed titanium cage, featuring anatomical conformity and a 70% porous structure, demonstrates 19.5% improved anti-subsidence performance compared to conventional designs, addressing limitations in prior 3D-printed solutions, providing a promising and feasible solution for reducing the subsidence of titanium cages.
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.