ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Porosity optimization confers 3D-printed porous tantalum scaffolds with superior osteogenic capability and biocompatibility over titanium alloys.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Influence of Ti-6Al-4V Scaffold Architecture on Early Cellular Responses Relevant to Bone Regeneration.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the osseointegration capacity, biocompatibility, and inflammatory response of 3D-printed tantalum (Ta) and titanium alloy (Ti) scaffolds, with a specific focus on isolating the effect of intrinsic material properties by employing identical pore sizes (200-1000 μm) and porosities (25-95%).
methodsTa and Ti scaffolds with controlled pore sizes and porosities were fabricated using 3D printing. Their physicochemical properties and biological performance were systematically evaluated to compare the two materials under architecturally identical conditions.
resultsThe key finding was that the material composition itself, independent of pore architecture, was a predominant factor governing cellular responses. While both materials supported osteogenesis, Ta scaffolds demonstrated superior osteogenic differentiation, mineralization, and cell adhesion at matched porosities and pore sizes. Gene expression analysis revealed that Ta promoted higher expression of key osteogenic markers (Runx2, Sp7, Bglap), whereas Ti scaffolds showed higher expression of Ctnnb1 and Axin2 and a slightly better anti-inflammatory profile. High porosity (85%, 95%) was generally beneficial for osteogenic activity in both materials.
conclusionThe study demonstrates that the intrinsic properties of Ta and Ti significantly influence their biological performance beyond the effects of porosity and pore size. Ta exhibits superior overall osteogenic potential and cell adhesion, making it a promising candidate for orthopedic coatings. This direct comparison under identical topological conditions provides crucial insights for selecting and optimizing base materials for prosthetic implants.
trial registrationThis study is a computer simulation/in vitro cell experiment/data analysis study, and does not involve human or animal experiments.
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.