4.3 Review

Metallic powder-bed based 3D printing of cellular scaffolds for orthopaedic implants: A state-of-the-art review on manufacturing, topological design, mechanical properties and biocompatibility

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2017.02.094

Keywords

3D printing; Cellular scaffolds; Titanium; Implant; Topology; Biocompatibility

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Metallic cellular scaffold is one of the best choices for orthopaedic implants as a replacement of human body parts, which could improve life quality and increase longevity for the people needed. Unlike conventional methods of making cellular scaffolds, three-dimensional (3D) printing or additive manufacturing opens up new possibilities to fabricate those customisable intricate designs with highly interconnected pores. In the past decade, metallic powder-bed based 3D printing methods emerged and the techniques are becoming increasingly mature recently, where selective laser melting (SLM) and selective electron beam melting (SEBM) are the two representatives. Due to the advantages of good dimensional accuracy, high build resolution, clean build environment, saving materials, high customisability, etc., SLM and SEBM show huge potential in direct customisable manufacturing of metallic cellular scaffolds for orthopaedic implants. Ti-6AI-4 V to date is still considered to be the optimal materials for producing orthopaedic implants due to its best combination of biocompatibility, corrosion resistance and mechanical properties. This paper presents a state-of-the-art overview mainly on manufacturing, topological design, mechanical properties and biocompatibility of cellular Ti-6A1-4V scaffolds via SLM and SEBM methods. Current manufacturing limitations, topological shortcomings, uncertainty of bio-compatible test were sufficiently discussed herein. Future perspectives and recommendations were given at the end. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available