Article3D printing in medicine2025
Mechanical assessment of a titanium cervical spine corpectomy cage assembled with 3D-printed patient-specific endplate-conformed contact surfaces and a traditionally manufactured expandable mechanism.
Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study developed a new titanium cervical spine expandable corpectomy cage (ECC) that consisted of two superior/inferior patient-specific endplate-conformed contact surfaces (PECSs) fabricated through 3D printing and a standardized centrally expandable mechanism (CEM) manufactured using traditional machining. Fatigue testing was conducted to evaluate whether the components of ECC could be assembled using different manufacturing methods to meet the functional testing requirements in compliance with FDA regulations. The titanium 3D-printed superior/inferior PECSs were designed based on the CT images/CAD system to assembly with a CNC milling/precision wire cutting cuboid CEM (14 mm square cross-section) expansion driven by a set of sliders interlocked via key and keyway mechanisms for the ECC of two-segmental vertebral bodies. The ECC underwent FDA-compliant static/dynamic compression, shear, torsion, subsidence tests and finite element (FE) analysis for understanding the stress differences on endplates between PECS and flat-shaped endplate contact surface (FECS). Stiffness/yield strength were found to be 2127 ± 146 N/mm/8547 ± 1213 N for the compression test, 1158 ± 139 N/mm/ 2561 ± 114 N for the shear test, and 1.22 ± 0.32 Nm/deg/16.5 ± 0.58 Nm for the torque test. Some failure samples showed that fixation screws were fractured/loosened under the shear test. The endure limits were 1600 N, 350 N and 1.0 N*m under compression, shear and torsion cyclic load tests, respectively. The results of the static axial compression and static/dynamic compression-shear testing did not meet the acceptance criteria of ISO 23,089. The PECS with higher stiffness value showed that better subsidence resistance was achieved than FECS and was consistent with that the maximum stress value and distribution for the FECS were more harmful than those for the PECS models. This study demonstrated that mechanical testing is essential when assembling 3D-printed components with CNC-manufactured parts in multi-component medical implants, as mismatches in interface behavior may result in mechanical failure. The results of FE analysis and subsidence tests indicated that PECS can decrease stress concentration between the ECC and endplates to present better performance for subsidence resistance.
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.