Literature DB >> 34917699

Data related to architectural bone parameters and the relationship to Ti lattice design for powder bed fusion additive manufacturing.

Martine McGregor1, Sagar Patel1, Stewart McLachlin1, Mihaela Vlasea1.   

Abstract

The data included in this article provides additional supporting information on our publication (McGregor et al. [1]) on the review of the natural lattice architecture in human bone and its implication towards titanium (Ti) lattice design for laser powder bed fusion and electron beam powder bed fusion. For this work, X-ray computed tomography was deployed to understand and visualize a Ti-6Al-4V lattice structure manufactured by laser powder bed fusion. This manuscript includes details about the manufacturing of the lattice structure using laser powder bed fusion and computed tomography methods used for analyzing the lattice structure. Additionally, a comprehensive literature review was conducted to understand how lattice parameters are controlled in additively manufactured Ti and Ti-alloy parts aimed at replacing or augmenting human bone. From this literature review, lattice design information was collected and is summarized in tabular form in this manuscript.
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AM, Additive manufacturing; Additive manufacturing; Bone replacement, Orthopaedic design; E-PBF, Electron beam power bed fusion; L-PBF, Laser powder bed fusion; Laser powder bed fusion; Lattice design; TPMS, Triply periodic minimal surface; Ti, Titanium; X-ray computed tomography; XCT, X-ray computed tomography

Year:  2021        PMID： 34917699      PMCID： PMC8646123          DOI： 10.1016/j.dib.2021.107633

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Data Brief        ISSN： 2352-3409


Specifications Table

Value of the Data

The data included in Table 3 provides a comprehensive overview at attempts made at replacing and repairing human bone through Ti and Ti-6Al-4V lattice structures manufactured with powder bed fusion technologies.
Table 3

Literature reporting the use of Ti lattices for the purpose of human bone replacement and/or augmentation is summarized. Lattice design parameters, lattice type, AM technology (laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) and electron beam powder bed fusion (E-PBF)) and compressive mechanical properties were recorded, as available. Blank entries reflect data not included in the original publication. Findings from Table 3 were used to create Figures 10-14 in McGregor et al. [1].

ReferencePorosity (%)Pore Size (µm)Feature Thickness (µm)Lattice TypeUnit Cell Size (mm3)AM TechnologyMaterialE (GPa)σc (MPa)σy (MPa)
Mobbs et al., 2017 [3]———FCC——Ti———
Kim et al., 2017 [4]———FCC—E-PBFTi-6Al-4V———
Choy et al., 2017 [5]——————Ti———
Phan et al., 2016 [6]———Simple Cubic——Ti-6Al-4V———
Xu et al., 2016 [7]—————E-PBF————
Taniguchi et al., 2016 [8]61.6*309*220.0*Diamond—L-PBFTi0.66*50.0*—
66.4*632*416.0*Diamond—L-PBFTi0.56*50.0*—
64.0*956*577.0*Diamond—L-PBFTi0.76*16.0*—
de Wild et al., 2013 [9]83.0550*200.0Simple Cubic—L-PBFTi0.76*16.0*—
Hilton et al., 2017 [10]—————E-PBFTi-6Al-4V———
Schouman et al., 2016 [11]53.0800-1500———L-PBFTi37.90——
Arabnejad et al., 2017 [12]70.0500200.0Tetrahedron—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V———
Wu et al., 2013 [13]68.0710———E-PBFTi-6Al-4V2.5063.0—
Biemond et al., 2013 [14]63.0250–800———L-PBFTi———
49.0350–1400———E-PBFTi———
Xue et al., 2007 [15]17.0100———L-PBFTi44.00463.0—
20.0300———L-PBFTi42.00444.0—
27.0450———L-PBFTi24.30205.0—
48.0550———L-PBFTi7.7054.0—
58.0800———L-PBFTi2.6024.0—
Van der Stok et al., 2013 [16]88.0—120.0Dodecahedron—L-PBFTi‐23014.3077.7—
68.0—230.0Dodecahedron—L-PBFTi‐1200.381.6—
Srivas et al., 2017 [17]58.0500348.0Simple Cubic—FDMTi-6Al-4V0.4539.6—
Wieding et al., 2015 [18]70.0700400.0Simple Cubic1.33L-PBFTi-6Al-4V8.22168.2—
Van Bael et al., 2012 [19]—500-1000200.0TriangularHoneycomb—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V———
—500-1000200.0HexagonalHoneycomb——Ti-6Al-4V———
—500-1000200.0Rectangularhoneycomb——Ti-6Al-4V———
Otsuki et al., 2006 [20]48.0233*—Porous foam——Ti———
50.0303*—Porous foam——Ti———
69.0268*—Porous foam——Ti———
70.0333*—Porous foam—Ti———
Ghouse et al., 2019 [21]87.3830210.0Stochastic—L-PBFTi1.70550.0—
Zhao et al., 2018 [22]67.0500—Tetrahedron—L-PBFTi4.66417.7135.6
84.01000—Tetrahedron—L-PBFTi1.31100.731.8
63.0500—Octahedron—L-PBFTi5.51453.0228.4
77.01000—Octahedron—L-PBFTi2.57117.381.2
Fousova et al., 2017 [23]48.4—300.0Rhombic Dodecahedron2L-PBFTi-6Al-4V47.60422.0—
62.1—300.0Rhombic Dodecahedron2L-PBFTi-6Al-4V30.50257.0—
79.2—300.0Rhombic Dodecahedron2L-PBFTi-6Al-4V19.0—
Arabnejad et al., 2016 [24]50.0500390.0Tetrahedron1.52L-PBFTi4.30219.0—
60.0500310.0Tetrahedron1.39L-PBFTi3.00136.0—
70.0500240.0Tetrahedron1.27L-PBFTi2.80120.0—
75.0500200.0Tetrahedron1.2L-PBFTi2.0068.0—
50.0770400.0Octahedron1.66L-PBFTi4.50228.0—
60.0770320.0Octahedron1.54L-PBFTi3.40145.0—
70.0770250.0Octahedron1.44L-PBFTi1.4031.0—
75.0770200.0Octahedron1.37L-PBFTi1.3039.0—
Moiduddin et al., 2017 [25]49.8700800.0BCC2E-PBFTi-6Al-4V1.2062.0—
Harrysson et al., 2008 [26]59.0——Rhombic Dodecahedron3E-PBFTi-6Al-4V—91.7—
59.0——Rhombic Dodecahedron3E-PBFTi-6Al-4V—94.1—
59.0——Rhombic Dodecahedron3E-PBFTi-6Al-4V—94.9—
92.0——Rhombic Dodecahedron8E-PBFTi-6Al-4V—2.9—
92.0——Rhombic Dodecahedron8E-PBFTi-6Al-4V—3.1—
95.0———10———0.8—
Wong et al., 2015 [27]70.0720350.0——L-PBFTi-6Al-4V———
Taheri et al., 2016 [28]20.0—800.0—2L-PBFNiTi47.0072.0—
32.0—700.0—2L-PBFNiTi41.2055.0—
45.0—600.0—2L-PBFNiTi30.0039.0—
58.0—500.0—2L-PBFNiTi20.5023.0—
71.0—400.0—2L-PBFNiTi10.0015.0—
Wang et al., 2017 [29]72.3—400.0BCC2L-PBFTi-6Al-4V3.40—184.4
56.3—600.0BCC2L-PBFTi-6Al-4V4.80—333.0
29.3—900.0BCC2L-PBFTi-6Al-4V10.40—842.6
Marin et al., 2013 [30]66.3*660*—Hexagonal Honeycomb2E-PBFTi0.23*15.5*—
75.5*1370*—Hexagonal Honeycomb2E-PBFTi0.04*5.3*—
Lin et al., 2013 [31]—————L-PBFTi-6Al-4V35.00——
Barbas et al., 2012 [32]53.01180—Custom—L-PBFTi28.00180.0—
Wieding et al., 2014 [33]—799416.0Simple Cubic1.215L-PBFTi-6Al-4V15.00——
—7971448.0FCC4.024L-PBFTi-6Al-4V15.00——
—789393.0Custom1.182L-PBFTi-6Al-4V15.00——
du Pleiss et al., 2018 [34]50.0—1317.0Fluorite5L-PBFTi-6Al-4V3.80200.0—
50.0—1669.0BCC5L-PBFTi-6Al-4V3.60200.0—
Arjunan et al., 2020 [35]71.0——Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V6.81198.5125.9
74.3——Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V5.14195.079.5
81.2——Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V2.5877.467.1
83.0——Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V10.90284.5236.3
83.1——Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V3.6969.159.0
91.4——Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V2.2145.039.5
Murr et al., 2011 [36]——200.0Dodecahedron—E-PBFTi-6Al-4V———
———Stochastic—E-PBFTi-6Al-4V———
Soro et al., 2019 [37]25*138*768*Schwarz TPMS—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V58*—520*
42*282*635*Schwarz TPMS—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V44*325*
64*596552*Schwarz TPMS—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V22.3*160*
Alabort et al., 2019 [38]85.0500—Diamond TPMS1L-PBFTi-6Al-4V0.5765.0—
85.0350—Neovious TPMS1L-PBFTi-6Al-4V0.9050.0—
85.0200—Gyroid TPMS1L-PBFTi-6Al-4V1.3055.0—
Zhang et al., 2018 [39]79.5650200.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V1.2236.5—
76.3650250.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V2.0056.6—
72.6650300.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V3.0285.8—
67.9650350.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V3.79109.2—
66.1650400.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V5.15144.9—
Bartolomeu et al., 2021 [40]64.2500300.0Simple Cubic0.8L-PBFTi-6Al-4V42.00——
70.3600300.0Simple Cubic0.9L-PBFTi-6Al-4V28.60——
84.0500150.0Simple Cubic0.65L-PBFTi-6Al-4V22.60——
87.6600150.0Simple Cubic0.75L-PBFTi-6Al-4V16.10——
93.3600100.0Simple Cubic0.7L-PBFTi-6Al-4V12.40——
Balci et al., 2021 [41]54.55400.3Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V———
54.18900.4Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V———
61.01300.6Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V———
39.33900.2Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V———
48.96200.3Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V———
60.66500.3Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V———
Xiong et al., 2020 [42]65.8631283.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V4.72170.5126.8
67.1643285.0HexagonalHoneycomb—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V3.79163.0110.9
51.4636283.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V10.07419.8350.1
52.7643285.0HexagonalHoneycomb—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V10.99536.9423.8
Dallago et al., 2021 [43]92.7—670.0Simple Cubic4L-PBFTi-6Al-4V3.0216.016.0
92.7—670.0Simple Cubic4L-PBFTi-6Al-4V1.759.09.0
94.1—670.0Simple Cubic4L-PBFTi-6Al-4V1.849.09.0
92.7—500.0Simple Cubic3L-PBFTi-6Al-4V2.9814.015.0
Bari & Arjunan, 2019 [44]63.6——Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V13.87——
56.9——Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V19.52——
68.0——Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V10.74——
74.0—100.0Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V5.09169.0—
61.0—500.0Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V6.07342.0—
55.0—900.0Custom—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V5.42280.0—
Heinl et al., 2008 [45]81.11230—Diamond—E-PBFTi-6Al-4V1.6029.322.0
80.81230—Diamond—E-PBFTi-6Al-4V0.9021.016.1
59.5450—Simple Cubic—E-PBFTi-6Al-4V12.90148.4107.5
59.5450—Simple Cubic—E-PBFTi-6Al-4V3.90127.149.6
Liu et al., 2018 [46]97.0——Diamond5.5L-PBFTi-6Al-4V0.342.0—
81.0——Diamond5.5L-PBFTi-6Al-4V1.4078.0—
Yan et al., 2015 [47]80.01600*—Gyroid TPMS—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V1.25*81.3*—
95.0560*—Gyroid TPMS—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V0.13*6.5*—
80.01450*—Diamond TPMS—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V1.25*69.2*—
95.0480*—Diamond TPMS—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V0.12*4.7*—
Ge et al., 2020 [48]72.6550—Trabecular—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V5.5855.7—
70.0550—Gyroid TPMS—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V5.5134.6—
El-Sayed et al., 2020 [49]82.4—840.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V0.3519.3—
78.1—600.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V0.4426.1—
26.4—360.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V9.59150.0—
93.2—360.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V0.053.7—
65.5—600.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V7.73184.5—
73.1—840.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V1.5582.4—
75.0—600.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V1.2847.3—
89.4—200.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V0.2210.2—
43.9—360.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V4.95145.8—
64.5—840.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V4.1968.7—
90.3—600.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V0.167.5—
90.8—360.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V0.268.8—
20.0—600.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V11.83200.0—
51.4—840.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V9.3195.5—
55.5—1000.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V8.34228.4—
74.8—600.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V1.4152.2—
76.0—600.0Diamond—L-PBFTi-6Al-4V1.1749.3—
Wang et al., 2020 [50]64.4—670.0—3E-PBFTi-6Al-4V14.70169.7—
62.4—500.0—4E-PBFTi-6Al-4V21.00169.5—
59.7—400.0—5E-PBFTi-6Al-4V20.00229.0—
59.9—670.0—3E-PBFTi-6Al-4V18.30229.1—
58.2–500.0–4E-PBFTi-6Al-4V23.30243.9–
58.3–400.0–5E-PBFTi-6Al-4V25.30250.7–
Zhang et al., 2020 [51]———Gyroid TPMSGradedL-PBFTi-6Al-4V———
The richness of the dataset in Table 3 creates value for future reference when selecting lattice design parameters to tailor structures for compressive strength, yield strength and Young's modulus in aims of matching the mechanical properties of human bone. The design details and the laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) manufacturing data provided for the Voronoi lattice, a stochastic lattice structure, is important to help additive manufacturing readers reproduce the lattice structure showcased in Figures 15 and 16 in McGregor et al. [1] using an L-PBF system. The design of the lattice structure in particular can help a reader better visualize the various surface types described in Figure 15 in McGregor et al. [1]. The data provided about the X-ray computed tomography (XCT) measurements and the resulting analysis results provides the additive manufacturing community and/or bone replacement interested readers with sufficient information to examine a similar lattice structure using XCT and recreate results shown in McGregor et al. [1].

Data Description

The Ti-6Al-4V Voronoi lattice structure manufactured by laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) was analyzed in a 3D X-ray computed tomography (XCT) scanner (ZEISS Xradia 520 Versa). Voronoi lattices structures have numerous down-skin and overhanging features which cannot be controlled due to the stochastic nature of the lattice and therefore make an excellent showcase for manufacturability challenges with powder bed fusion AM. The original publication, McGregor et al. [1], brings into focus the manufacturability limits of the powder bed fusion technology for the Ti and Ti-alloy lattice structures intended for bone replacement and repair. Therefore, the Voronoi lattice structure was selected as the test object for demonstrating these challenges. Voronoi lattice structures are also relatively new to the AM community and not well-studied, further justifying the use of a Voronoi lattice structure in this work. The Voronoi lattice designed for comparison of manufactured versus ideal design had a design-imposed strut thickness of 500 µm, random point spacing of 50 points at 1000 µm, and 5 × 10 × 10 mm in size. The design (STL) file for the Voronoi lattice structure was created in nTopology and is attached as supplementary material to this article. The important processing parameters used to obtain the XCT results for the entire lattice structure (left of Figure 15 in McGregor et al. [1]) are shown in Table 1, and the parameters used for the high resolution scan (center and right of Figure 15 in McGregor et al. [1]) are shown in Table 2. To visualize the defect space within the sample, the XCT scanned file was then analyzed using an image processing software (Dragonfly 3.0, Object Research Systems Inc., Montreal, QC) [2]. To visualize the porous defects, the XCT dataset was subjected to greyscale thresholding and segmentation into the solid material (Ti-6Al-4V) and pores. Thresholding values were manually established by examining images prior to and after thresholding to show the best contrast. Following segmentation, the resulting binarized images were used to obtain information about the aspect ratio of all the pores. Defects with aspect ratios above 0.7 were considered as rounded pores for visualization of the porous defects. The brightness, contrast, and opacity of the solid material and pores was then adjusted to highlight the pores and surface features within the XCT data volume.
Table 1

X-ray computed tomography (XCT) parameters used for scanning the entire Ti-6Al-4V Voronoi lattice structure.

ParameterUnitValue
Voxel size[µm]12.54
Source power[W]7
Source voltage[kV]80
Filter-LE6
X-ray optic-0.4x lens
Source-to-sample position[mm]23.02
Detector-to-sample position[mm]103
Exposure time[s]1.5
Number of projections-2401
Binning level-2
Table 2

X-ray computed tomography (XCT) parameters used for scanning the high-resolution portion of the Ti-6Al-4V Voronoi lattice structure.

ParameterUnitValue
Voxel size[µm]2.00
Source power[W]7
Source voltage[kV]80
Filter-LE6
X-ray optic-4x lens
Source-to-sample position[mm]14.04
Detector-to-sample position[mm]103
Exposure time[s]4
Number of projections-3001
Binning level-2
X-ray computed tomography (XCT) parameters used for scanning the entire Ti-6Al-4V Voronoi lattice structure. X-ray computed tomography (XCT) parameters used for scanning the high-resolution portion of the Ti-6Al-4V Voronoi lattice structure. The lattice design parameters dataset provided in Table 3 was collected by narrowing down to and reviewing 49 journal articles that deployed either laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) or electron beam powder bed fusion (E-PBF) for Ti or Ti-6Al-4V lattice manufacturing with the objective of replacing, repairing, or augmenting human bone. The review methodology followed is depicted in the flowchart in Figure 1. Details about the manufacturing technology used (L-PBF or E-PBF), lattice type, lattice porosity (%), lattice pore size (µm), lattice feature thickness (µm), material (Ti or Ti-6Al-4V), Young's modulus (E, GPa), compressive yield strength (σy), and ultimate compressive strength (σu, MPa) are provided in Table 3. The values reported in Table 3 represent those values reported in each individual study, which differ from individual lattice properties to average compressive mechanical properties from multiple tests. Individual values were included whenever available, averages from large data sets are denoted with a “*”, and data not reported in a given study was denoted “—”. The addition of these characters is aimed at improving data interpretation and allowing readers to use the table to appropriately design Ti lattice for bone replacement and repair in the future, or to build upon this literature. Findings from Table 3 were used to create Figures 10-14 in McGregor et al. [1].
Fig. 1

A flowchart has been utilized to describe the review methodology with the search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined.

Literature reporting the use of Ti lattices for the purpose of human bone replacement and/or augmentation is summarized. Lattice design parameters, lattice type, AM technology (laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) and electron beam powder bed fusion (E-PBF)) and compressive mechanical properties were recorded, as available. Blank entries reflect data not included in the original publication. Findings from Table 3 were used to create Figures 10-14 in McGregor et al. [1]. A glossary of the lattice types described in Table 3 has been included. The unit cells are 10 × 10 × 10 mm with a feature thickness of 1mm. The glossary includes an isometric and frontal view of each unit cell with a bounding box. A flowchart has been utilized to describe the review methodology with the search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined.

Experimental Design, Materials and Methods

The Voronoi lattice structure was manufactured using Ti-6Al-4V powder on the reduced build volume (RBV) of a modulated laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) system (AM 400, Renishaw, UK). The design (STL) file for the Voronoi lattice structure is attached as supplementary material to this article. The powder used was plasma atomized, grade 23 with a size distribution of 15-45 µm (d10 of 20 µm, d50 of 34 µm, and d90 of 44 µm), provided by AP&C (Quebec, Canada). For the AM 400 system, the beam spot radius at the focal point is given by rB = 35 µm (beam spot diameter = 70 µm), which was kept constant for this study. The scan strategy followed this order: scanning of the core using the meander scanning strategy, followed by a single border scan that involves melting of the edge of each contour within a layer specified by the CAD of the lattice structure. The important core process parameters used for manufacturing the Voronoi include a laser power of 135 W, point distance of 55 µm, exposure time of 45 µs, a powder layer thickness value of 30 µm, and a hatching distance of 70 µm. For the border scanning, a laser power of 200 W, point distance of 45 µm, exposure time of 70 µs were used. The build plate was kept at room temperature for the print, and the oxygen level was set to 500 ppm. Argon was the shielding gas used for the printing process. The lattice structure was printed directly on the build plate and was removed from the build plate using electro-discharge machining (EDM).

Ethics Statement

The authors declare that this submission follows the ethical requirements for publication in Data in Brief.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Martine McGregor: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. Sagar Patel: Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. Stewart McLachlin: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration. Mihaela Vlasea: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors wish to declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
SubjectEngineering, Materials science, Health, and medical sciences
Specific subject areaAdditive manufacturing, Bone replacement, Metamaterials, Lattice structures, Orthopaedic design, Bone micro-architecture
Type of dataTable
How data were acquiredInstruments:Laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) machine, X-ray computed tomography (CT)Make and model of the instruments and software used:Renishaw AM 400 (L-PBF machine), ZEISS Xradia 520 Versa (CT hardware), Dragonfly 3.0, Object Research Systems Inc. (CT software), nTopology (software)
Data formatRawAnalyzed
Parameters for data collectionThe lattice sample was manufactured via laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing and analyzed using X-ray computed tomography. The literature review on lattice design parameters for titanium alloys fabricated via powder bed fusion followed a pre-defined taxonomy and inclusion criteria.
Description of data collectionThe lattice structure was manufactured using Ti-6Al-4V powder using laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) additive manufacturing. The lattice structure was then analyzed in a 3D X-ray computed tomography (XCT) scanner. The analysis of the XCT results was performed using an image processing software. Additionally, the lattice design information presented in tabular form was collected by reviewing 49 journal articles that deployed either laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) or electron beam powder bed fusion (E-PBF) for lattice manufacturing with the objective of replacing, repairing, or augmenting human bone.
Data source locationMulti-Scale Additive Manufacturing Laboratory, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
Data accessibilityThe raw and analyzed data is available with this article.
Related research articleMcGregor et al. [1]
Table 4

A glossary of the lattice types described in Table 3 has been included. The unit cells are 10 × 10 × 10 mm with a feature thickness of 1mm. The glossary includes an isometric and frontal view of each unit cell with a bounding box.

Image, table 4
  33 in total

1.  Ti-6Al-4V triply periodic minimal surface structures for bone implants fabricated via selective laser melting.

Authors:  Chunze Yan; Liang Hao; Ahmed Hussein; Philippe Young
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2015-07-09

2.  Additive manufacturing technology (direct metal laser sintering) as a novel approach to fabricate functionally graded titanium implants: preliminary investigation of fabrication parameters.

Authors:  Wei-Shao Lin; Thomas L Starr; Bryan T Harris; Amirali Zandinejad; Dean Morton
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.804

3.  Biomechanical stability of novel mechanically adapted open-porous titanium scaffolds in metatarsal bone defects of sheep.

Authors:  Jan Wieding; Tobias Lindner; Philipp Bergschmidt; Rainer Bader
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2015-01-16       Impact factor: 12.479

4.  Application of a 3D custom printed patient specific spinal implant for C1/2 arthrodesis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Alessandro Sgro; Monish M Maharaj; Paul D'Urso; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-12

5.  Effect of pore geometry on the fatigue properties and cell affinity of porous titanium scaffolds fabricated by selective laser melting.

Authors:  Danlei Zhao; Yutian Huang; Yong Ao; Changjun Han; Qian Wang; Yan Li; Jie Liu; Qingsong Wei; Zhen Zhang
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2018-08-30

6.  Rationally designed functionally graded porous Ti6Al4V scaffolds with high strength and toughness built via selective laser melting for load-bearing orthopedic applications.

Authors:  Yin-Ze Xiong; Rui-Ning Gao; Hang Zhang; Lan-Lan Dong; Jian-Tao Li; Xiang Li
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2020-02-08

7.  Selective Laser Melting of Ti6Al4V sub-millimetric cellular structures: Prediction of dimensional deviations and mechanical performance.

Authors:  F Bartolomeu; M M Costa; N Alves; G Miranda; F S Silva
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2020-10-03

8.  Reconstruction of Thoracic Spine Using a Personalized 3D-Printed Vertebral Body in Adolescent with T9 Primary Bone Tumor.

Authors:  Wen Jie Choy; Ralph J Mobbs; Ben Wilcox; Steven Phan; Kevin Phan; Chester E Sutterlin
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 2.104

9.  Effect of pore size on bone ingrowth into porous titanium implants fabricated by additive manufacturing: An in vivo experiment.

Authors:  Naoya Taniguchi; Shunsuke Fujibayashi; Mitsuru Takemoto; Kiyoyuki Sasaki; Bungo Otsuki; Takashi Nakamura; Tomiharu Matsushita; Tadashi Kokubo; Shuichi Matsuda
Journal:  Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 7.328

10.  Numerical optimization of open-porous bone scaffold structures to match the elastic properties of human cortical bone.

Authors:  Jan Wieding; Andreas Wolf; Rainer Bader
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2014-05-14
View more
  2 in total

1.  Microstructural Origins of the Corrosion Resistance of a Mg-Y-Nd-Zr Alloy Processed by Powder Bed Fusion - Laser Beam.

Authors:  Hanna Nilsson Åhman; Francesco D'Elia; Pelle Mellin; Cecilia Persson
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-07-01

2.  An Enhanced Understanding of the Powder Bed Fusion-Laser Beam Processing of Mg-Y3.9wt%-Nd3wt%-Zr0.5wt% (WE43) Alloy through Thermodynamic Modeling and Experimental Characterization.

Authors:  Hanna Nilsson Åhman; Lena Thorsson; Pelle Mellin; Greta Lindwall; Cecilia Persson
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-06       Impact factor: 3.623
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.