ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2026
Design of 3D-printed hydroxyapatite intervertebral fusion cages in a patient specific framework.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fusion surgery involves replacing degenerated intervertebral discs with artificial implants, usually composed of titanium alloys or PEEK, requiring bone grafting to assist tissue growth. This study aims to evaluate numerically 3D-printed porous ceramic implants as a bioactive alternative. Clinical computed tomographies of an adult patient were used to reconstruct the geometry and to assign mechanical properties to L1 and L2 vertebrae, utilizing a patient-specific anisotropic micromechanics-based model. The influence of different microstructural choices on a porous hydroxyapatite-based scaffold was analysed through finite element analysis, simulating standing and flexion. The analyzed scaffolds included: microstructured Face Centered Cubic (FCC) and Kelvin-based devices with uniform porosity (75%), and a Voronoi microstructured scaffold with uniform (75%) and graded porosity (60% external, 90% internal). Homogenized models were considered as a potential strategy to reduce computational costs. The FCC geometry and graded Voronoi proved more mechanically resistant to failure. Homogenized mechanical properties simplified the model, but didn’t accurately represent microstructural behaviour and local mechanical failure couldn’t be suitably identified. Patient-specific models allowed for a more accurate representation of mechanical stresses, leading to a reduced risk of structural failure. Hydroxyapatite proves to be a promising material for 3D-printed lumbar interbody fusion cages, able to provide primary stability.
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.