To meet the growing requirement of spinal interbody fusion caused by trauma and disease, 3D printed porous titanium alloy scaffolds were applied as intervertebral cages to achieve structural reconstruction of bone defects. However, the biological inert of the titanium alloy hindered firm bonding between the bone and porous scaffold. Surface roughness that resulted from sandblasting treatment with alumina sand grains could endow the titanium alloy scaffold with bioactivity. Minimum and maximum-type cervical and posterior lumbar cages were used to optimize the sandblasting process, achieving an adequate and uniform sandblasting effect. The optimized sandblasting process parameters were as follows: alumina sand grains of 100 mesh, sandblasting distance of 10 cm, sandblasting pressure of 0.4–0.5 MPa, and sandblasting time of 15–20 s.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LiP, JiangW, YanJ, et al.A novel 3D printed cage with microporous structure and in vivo fusion function. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2019; 107(7):1386–1392; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.36652.
2.
WuSH, LiY, ZhangYQ, et al.Porous titanium-6 aluminum-4 vanadium cage has better osseointegration and less micromotion than a poly-ether-ether-ketone cage in sheep vertebral fusion. Artif Organs, 2013; 37(12):E191–E201; doi: 10.1111/aor.12153.
3.
LevyHA, KaramianBA, YallaGR, et al.Impact of surface roughness and bulk porosity on spinal interbody implants. J Biomed Mater Res B, 2023; 111(2):478–489; doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.35161.
4.
ZhangL, YangG, JohnsonBN, et al.Three-dimensional (3D) printed scaffold and material selection for bone repair. Acta Biomater, 2019; 84:16–33; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.11.039.
5.
WeiH, CuiJ, LinK, et al.Recent advances in smart stimuli-responsive biomaterials for bone therapeutics and regeneration. Bone Res, 2022; 10(1):17; doi: 10.1038/s41413-021-00180-y.
6.
YinC, ZhangT, WeiQ, et al.Surface treatment of 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V implants by ultraviolet photofunctionalization for improved osseointegration. Bioact Mater, 2022; 7:26–38; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.05.043.
7.
ZhangJ, LiuJ, WangC, et al.A comparative study of the osteogenic performance between the hierarchical micro/submicro-textured 3D-printed Ti6Al4V surface and the SLA surface. Bioact Mater, 2020; 5(1):9–16; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2019.12.008.
8.
KashiiM, KitaguchiK, MakinoT, et al.Comparison in the same intervertebral space between titanium-coated and uncoated PEEK cages in lumbar interbody fusion surgery. J Orthop Sci, 2020; 25(4):565–570; doi: 10.1016/j.jos.2019.07.004.
9.
GarabanoG, RodriguezJ, Perez AlaminoL, et al.Stress shielding in total knee replacements: Comparative analysis between titanium and all-polyethylene bases at 10 years follow-up. J Orthop, 2022; 34:276–281; doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2022.09.007.
10.
ChuaK, KhanI, MalhotraR, et al.Additive manufacturing and 3D printing of metallic biomaterials. Eng Regen, 2021; 2:288–299; doi: 10.1016/j.engreg.2021.11.002.
11.
ArabnejadS, JohnstonRB, PuraJA, et al.High-strength porous biomaterials for bone replacement: A strategy to assess the interplay between cell morphology, mechanical properties, bone ingrowth and manufacturing constraints. Acta Biomaterialia, 2016; 30:345–356; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2015.10.048.
12.
JingZ, ZhangT, XiuP, et al.Functionalization of 3D-printed titanium alloy orthopedic implants: A literature review. Biomed Mater, 2020; 15(5):052003–052028; doi: 10.1088/1748-605X/ab9078.
13.
LiZ, BaiH, WangZ, et al.Ultrasound-mediated rapamycin delivery for promoting osseointegration of 3D printed prosthetic interfaces via autophagy regulation in osteoporosis. Mater Design, 2022; 216:110586–110598; doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110586.
14.
MarzolaA, BuonamiciF, FurferiR, et al.Additive manufacturing and reverse engineering in cranioplasty: A personalized approach to minimize skin flap complications. Appl Sci-Basel, 2021; 11(11):4926–4941; doi: 10.3390/app11114926.
15.
ShabaniB, DukovskiV. Integration of reverse engineering and topology optimization with additive manufacturing. Comput Aided Design Appl, 2021; 19(1):164–175; doi: 10.14733/cadaps.2022.164-175.
16.
ZhangJ, ZhaoC, ShengR, et al.Construction of a hierarchical micro-/submicro-/nanostructured 3D-printed Ti6Al4V surface feature to promote osteogenesis: Involvement of Sema7A through the ITGB1/FAK/ERK Signaling Pathway. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2022; 14(27):30571–30581; doi: 10.1021/acsami.2c06454.
17.
de WildM, ZimmermannS, RüeggJ, et al.Influence of microarchitecture on osteoconduction and mechanics of porous titanium scaffolds generated by selective laser melting. 3D Print Addit Manuf, 2016; 3(3):142–151; doi: 10.1089/3dp.2016.0004.
18.
ZhengXX, DuanF, SongZY, et al.A TMPS-designed personalized mandibular scaffolds with optimized SLA parameters and mechanical properties. Front Mater, 2022; 9:966031–966045; doi: 10.3389/fmats.2022.966031.
19.
ParkPJ, LehmanRA. Optimizing the spinal interbody implant: Current advances in material modification and surface treatment technologies. Curr Rev Musculoske, 2020; 13(6):688–695; doi: 10.1007/s12178-020-09673-5.
20.
Peñuela-CruzCE, Márquez-HerreraA, Aguilera-GómezE, et al.The effects of sandblasting on the surface properties of magnesium sheets: A statistical study. J Mater Res Technol, 2023; 23:1321–1331; doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.01.117.
21.
JahaniB, WangX. The effects of surface roughness on the functionality of Ti13Nb13Zr orthopedic implants. Biomed J Sci Techn Res, 2021; 38(1):30058–30067; doi: 10.26717/BJSTR.2021.38.006104.
22.
YabeA, OkadaM, HaraES, et al.Self-adhering implantable device of titanium: Enhanced soft-tissue adhesion by sandblast pretreatment. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 2022; 211:112283–112291; doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2021.112283.
23.
García-ColladoA, Romero-CarrilloPE, Dorado-VicenteR, et al.Studying the effect of short carbon fiber on fused filament fabrication parts roughness via machine learning. 3D Print Addit Manuf, 2022; 10(6):1336–1346; doi: 10.1089/3dp.2021.0304.
24.
RajputAS, KapilS, DasM. Surface enhancement of additively manufactured bone plate through hybrid-electrochemical magnetorheological finishing process. 3D Print Addit Manuf, 2022; doi: 10.1089/3dp.2023.0028.
25.
ChmielewskaA, JahadakbarA, WysockiB, et al.Chemical polishing of additively manufactured, porous, nickel-titanium skeletal fixation plates. 3D Print Addit Manuf, 2022; 9(4):269–277; doi: 10.1089/3dp.2020.0209.
26.
LiFP, LiJS, XuGS, et al.Fabrication, pore structure and compressive behavior of anisotropic porous titanium for human trabecular bone implant applications. J Mech Behav Biomed, 2015; 46:104–114; doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.02.023.
27.
ConradTL, RoederRK. Effects of porogen morphology on the architecture, permeability, and mechanical properties of hydroxyapatite whisker reinforced polyetheretherketone scaffolds. J Mech Behav Biomed, 2020; 106:103730–103738; doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103730.
