This study advances orthopaedic implant design by examining the impact of lattice structures on gait cycles and integrating biomimicry principles for superior patient outcomes. Using Finite Element Analysis (FEA), three lattice designs; Face Centred Cubic (FCC), Body Centred Cubic (BCC), and a hybrid Face-Body Centred Cubic (FBCC) were evaluated with materials including Ni-Ti Shape Memory Alloy, TNTZ Alloy, and AZ91D Alloy for its suitability in orthopaedic implants. AZ91D emerged as the optimal material based on compression analysis, offering the best balance of strength and weight. Tibia bone implants made from AZ91D were tested under various gait cycle conditions, including loading-level knee bending, 20% bending, and 30% bending, where the FBCC structure outperformed others due to its enhanced load transfer capabilities. Porosity effects were analysed by varying strut diameters between 0.3 mm and 0.6 mm, resulting in a 40% stiffness difference compared to natural bone, affirming its suitability for biomimetic applications. This innovative approach achieves an ∼86% weight reduction compared to titanium-based implants, significantly enhancing comfort, reducing physical strain, and improving mobility for amputees. By leveraging advanced topology optimisation and material science, this research provides valuable insights into lightweight and high-performance orthopaedic implant development.
BauerSSchmukiPVon Der MarkK, et al. Engineering biocompatible implant surfaces: part I: materials and surfaces. Prog Mat Sci2013; 58(3): 261–326.
2.
NaghaviSALinCSunC, et al. Stress shielding and bone resorption of press–fit polyether–ether–ketone (PEEK) hip prosthesis: a sawbone model study. Polymers2022; 14(21): 4600.
3.
Be’ery–LippermanMGefenA.A method of quantification of stress shielding in the proximal femur using hierarchical computational modeling. Comp Meth Biomech Biomed Eng2006; 9(1): 35–44.
4.
YinHMengFZhuL, et al. Optimization design of a novel hybrid hierarchical cellular structure for crashworthiness. Comp Struct2023; 303: 116335.
5.
MaconachieTLearyMLozanovskiB, et al. SLM lattice structures: properties, performance, applications and challenges. Mat Des2019; 183: 108137.
6.
GrecoLBuccinoFXuZ, et al. Design and analysis of energy absorbent bioinspired lattice structures. J Bionic Eng2023; 20(4): 1670–86.
IbrahimYLiZDaviesCM, et al. Acoustic resonance testing of additive manufactured lattice structures. Add Manufact2018; 24: 566–76.
9.
TotaroGGürdalZ.Optimal design of composite lattice shell structures for aerospace applications. Aerospace Sci Technol2009; 13(4–5): 157–64.
10.
TotaroGGürdalZ.Optimal design of composite lattice shell structures for aerospace applications. Aerospace Sci Technol2009; 13(4–5): 157–64.
11.
BarbaDAlabortEReedRC.Synthetic bone: design by additive manufacturing. Acta Biomat2019Oct1; 97: 637–56.
12.
HedayatiMNeufeldMJReynoldsMM, et al. The quest for blood–compatible materials: Recent advances and future technologies. Mat Sci Eng R Rep2019; 138: 118–52.
13.
Van BaelSChaiYCTruscelloS, et al. The effect of pore geometry on the in vitro biological behavior of human periosteum–derived cells seeded on selective laser–melted Ti6Al4V bone scaffolds. Acta Biomat2012; 8(7): 2824–34.
14.
JastyMBragdonCBurkeD, et al. In vivo skeletal responses to porous–surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions. JBJS1997; 79(5): 707–14.
15.
JastyMBragdonCBurkeD, et al. In vivo skeletal responses to porous–surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions. JBJS1997; 79(5): 707–14.
16.
KienapfelHSpreyCWilkeA, et al. Implant fixation by bone ingrowth. J Arthroplasty1999; 14(3): 355–68.
17.
WazenRMCurreyJAGuoH, et al. Micromotion–induced strain fields influence early stages of repair at bone–implant interfaces. Acta Biomat2013; 9(5): 6663–74.
18.
TissakhtMAhmedAM.Tensile stress–strain characteristics of the human meniscal material. J Biomech1995; 28(4): 411–22.
19.
KejaMWeversHWSiuD, et al. Relative motion at the bone–prosthesis interface. Clin Biomech1994; 9(5): 275–83.
20.
RahimizadehANourmohammadiZArabnejadS, et al. Porous architected biomaterial for a tibial–knee implant with minimum bone resorption and bone–implant interface micromotion. J Mech Behav Biomed Mat2018; 78: 465–79.
21.
Arabnejad KhanokiSPasiniD. Multiscale design and multiobjective optimization of orthopedic hip implants with functionally graded cellular material. J Biomed Eng2012; 134(3): 031004–031014.
22.
JiangSWangMHeJ.A review of biomimetic scaffolds for bone regeneration: toward a cell-free strategy. Bioeng Translat Med2021; 6(2): e10206.
23.
JiaoJHongQZhangD, et al. Influence of porosity on osteogenesis, bone growth and osteointegration in trabecular tantalum scaffolds fabricated by additive manufacturing. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2023; 11: 1117954.
24.
JiaoJHongQZhangD, et al. Influence of porosity on osteogenesis, bone growth and osteointegration in trabecular tantalum scaffolds fabricated by additive manufacturing. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2023; 11: 1117954.
25.
SongCLiuLDengZ, et al. Research progress on the design and performance of porous titanium alloy bone implants. J Mat Res Technol2023; 23: 2626–41.
26.
NajdahmadiAZarei–HanzakiAFarghadaniE.Mechanical properties enhancement in Ti–29Nb–13Ta–4.6 Zr alloy via heat treatment with no detrimental effect on its biocompatibility. Mat Des2014; 54: 786–91.
27.
SongGAtrensADarguschM.Influence of microstructure on the corrosion of diecast AZ91D. Corr Sci1998; 41(2): 249–73.
28.
SadrnezhaadSKHosseiniSA.Fabrication of porous NiTi–shape memory alloy objects by partially hydrided titanium powder for biomedical applications. Mat Des2009; 30(10): 4483–7.
29.
KutznerIHeinleinBGraichenF, et al. Loading of the knee joint during activities of daily living measured in vivo in five subjects. J Biomech2010; 43(11): 2164–73.
30.
HeinleinBKutznerIGraichenF, et al. Complete data of total knee replacement loading for level walking and stair climbing measured in vivo with a follow–up of 6–10 months. Clin Biomech2009; 24(4): 315–26.
31.
BabamiriBBBarnesBSoltani–TehraniA, et al. Designing additively manufactured lattice structures based on deformation mechanisms. Add Manufact2021; 46: 102143.
32.
AlomarZConcliF.Compressive behavior assessment of a newly developed circular cell–based lattice structure. Mat Des2021; 205: 109716.
33.
JinNWangFWangY, et al. Failure and energy absorption characteristics of four lattice structures under dynamic loading. Mat Des2019; 169: 107655.
34.
YangJChiouRRuprechtA, et al. A new device for measuring density of jaw bones. DentomaxRadiol2002; 31(5): 313–6.
35.
MeemaHEMeemaS.Compact bone mineral density of the normal human radius. Acta Radiol Oncol Rad Phys Biol1978; 17(4): 342–52.
36.
FanHJinFFangD.Characterization of edge effects of composite lattice structures. Comp Sci Technol2009; 69(11–12): 1896–903.
37.
BenedettiMDu PlessisARitchieRO, et al. Architected cellular materials: a review on their mechanical properties towards fatigue–tolerant design and fabrication. Mat Sci Eng R Rep2021; 144: 100606.
38.
AbbasiNHamletSLoveRM, et al. Porous scaffolds for bone regeneration. J Sci Adv Mat Dev2020; 5(1): 1–9.
39.
Du PlessisARazaviNBenedettiM, et al. Properties and applications of additively manufactured metallic cellular materials: a review. Prog Mat Sci2022; 125: 100918.
40.
BaiLYiCChenX, et al. Effective design of the graded strut of BCC lattice structure for improving mechanical properties. Materials2019; 12(13): 2192.
41.
SmallSRRoggeRDMalinzakRA, et al. Micromotion at the tibial plateau in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty: fixed versus rotating platform designs. Bone Joint Res2016; 5(4): 122–9.
42.
SolovevaOVSolovevSATalipovaAR, et al. Study of heat transfer in models of FCC, BCC, SC and DEM porous structures with different porosities. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series2022Dec1 (Vol 2373, No 2, p. 022040). IOP Publishing.
43.
BurchardRGrawJASoostC, et al. Stress shielding effect after total hip arthroplasty varies between combinations of stem design and stiffness—a comparing biomechanical finite element analysis. Int Orthop2023; 47(8): 1981–7.
44.
GaoXFraulobMHaïatG.Biomechanical behaviours of the bone–implant interface: a review. J Royal Soc Interf2019; 16(156): 20190259.
45.
GibsonLAshbyM.Cellular solids: Structure and properties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
46.
QiuCYueSAdkinsNJ, et al. Influence of processing conditions on strut structure and compressive properties of cellular lattice structures fabricated by selective laser melting. Mat Sci Eng A2015; 628: 188–97.
47.
HanzlPZetkováICajthamlováŠ.Influence of strut diameter and building direction on strength of lattice structure. Manufact Technol2019; 19(6): 947–51.
48.
ZhaoJLiuRCaiJ, et al. Enhanced mechanical properties of lattice structures enabled by tailoring oblique truss orientation angle. Adv Eng Mat2024; 26(6): 2301646.
49.
GaoXFraulobMHaïatG.Biomechanical behaviours of the bone–implant interface: a review. J Royal Soc Interf2019; 16(156): 20190259.
50.
CurreyJD.Bones: structure and mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022.
51.
SumnerDR.Long–term implant fixation and stress–shielding in total hip replacement. J Biomech2015; 48(5): 797–800.
52.
LiJPHabibovicPvan den DoelM, et al. Bone ingrowth in porous titanium implants produced by 3D fiber deposition. Biomaterials2007; 28(18): 2810–20.
53.
Van der StokJVan der JagtOPAmin YavariS, et al. Selective laser melting-produced porous titanium scaffolds regenerate bone in critical size cortical bone defects. J Ortho Res2013; 31(5): 792–9.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
