Additive manufacturing, particularly using Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF) technologies with 316L stainless steel, has proven highly promising in biomedical engineering due to the material’s exceptional mechanical properties and biocompatibility. This study, which is a foundational step towards developing porous bone implants, focuses on assessing the influence of a broad range of parameters - spot size, scanning speed, laser power, and energy density - on the mechanical performance and structural integrity of 316L stainless steel parts across three distinct specimen geometries: fully dense parallelepipedic, fully dense cubic, and cellular (lattice) specimens. By analysing 17 different parameter sets and producing over 150 specimens, a thorough series of experimental tests were conducted, including flexural tests, compression tests, hardness tests, macroscopic evaluation of the surface of fully dense specimens, and macroscopic evaluation of the lattice structures.e in powder accumulation within the pores of cellular structures, with higher energy densities (100 J/mm3) leading to a significantly greater retention compared to lower energy densities (66 J/mm3). This underexplored phenomenon has significant implications for the selection of parameters in the fabrication of bone implants. Further research is needed to refine LPBF printing parameters and enhance the quality of porous bone implants.
CostaCLopesPCastroJet al. High-performance thermoplastics obtained by fused filament fabrication: effects of harsh environmental conditions of power transformers. Prog Addit Manuf2024; 1–16.
2.
SefeneEM. State-of-the-art of selective laser melting process: a comprehensive review. J Manuf Syst2022; 63: 250–274.
3.
SpearsTGGoldSA. In-process sensing in selective laser melting (SLM) additive manufacturing. Integr Mater Manuf Innov2016; 5: 16–40.
4.
LimbasiyaNJainASoniHet al. A comprehensive review on the effect of process parameters and post-process treatments on microstructure and mechanical properties of selective laser melting of AlSi10Mg. J Mater Res Technol2022; 21: 1141–1176.
5.
YadroitsevIBertrandPSmurovI. Parametric analysis of the selective laser melting process. Appl Surf Sci2007; 253: 8064–8069.
6.
DallagoMZaniniFCarmignatoSet al. Effect of the geometrical defectiveness on the mechanical properties of SLM biomedical Ti6Al4V lattices. Procedia Struct Integrity2018; 13: 161–167.
LiveraniEToschiSCeschiniLet al. Effect of selective laser melting (SLM) process parameters on microstructure and mechanical properties of 316L austenitic stainless steel. J Mater Process Technol2017; 249: 255–263.
9.
GrecoSGutzeitKHotzHet al. Selective laser melting (SLM) of AISI 316L—impact of laser power, layer thickness, and hatch spacing on roughness, density, and microhardness at constant input energy density. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2020; 108: 1551–1562.
10.
ZhangBDembinskiLCoddetC. The study of the laser parameters and environment variables effect on mechanical properties of high compact parts elaborated by selective laser melting 316L powder. Mater Sci Eng: A2013; 584: 21–31.
11.
TanJHWongWLEDalgarnoKW. An overview of powder granulometry on feedstock and part performance in the selective laser melting process. Addit Manuf2017; 18: 228–255.
12.
HajnysJPagacMKoteraOet al. Influence of basic process parameters on mechanical and internal properties of 316L steel in SLM process for renishaw AM400. MM Sci J2019.
13.
DonikČKranerJPaulinI al et. Influence of the energy density for selective laser melting on the microstructure and mechanical properties of stainless steel. Metals2020; 10: 919.
14.
YuZXuZGuoYet al. Study on properties of SLM-NITI shape memory alloy under the same energy density. J Mater Res Technol2021; 13: 241–250.
15.
GouveiaRMSilvaFJAtzeniEet al. Effect of scan strategies and use of support structures on surface quality and hardness of L-PBF alSi10Mg parts. Materials2020; 13: 2248.
16.
EfremenkoBZurnadzhyVChabakYGet al. A comparison study on the effect of counter ball material on sliding wear response of SLM-printed biomedical 316L steel. Mater Today: Procee2022; 66: 2587–2593.
17.
GongHSnellingDKardelKet al. Comparison of stainless steel 316L parts made by FDM-and SLM-based additive manufacturing processes. Jom2019; 71: 880–885.
18.
ManCDongCLiuTet al. The enhancement of microstructure on the passive and pitting behaviors of selective laser melting 316L SS in simulated body fluid. Appl Surf Sci2019; 467: 193–205.
19.
PłatekPSienkiewiczJJaniszewskiJet al. Investigations on mechanical properties of lattice structures with different values of relative density made from 316L by selective laser melting (SLM). Materials2020; 13: 2204.
20.
YanCHaoLHusseinAet al. Advanced lightweight 316L stainless steel cellular lattice structures fabricated via selective laser melting. Mater Des2014; 55: 533–541.
21.
EchetaIFengXDuttonBet al. Review of defects in lattice structures manufactured by powder bed fusion. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2020; 106: 2649–2668.
22.
ZhongTHeKLiHet al. Mechanical properties of lightweight 316L stainless steel lattice structures fabricated by selective laser melting. Mater Des2019; 181: 108076.
23.
RodriguesRLopesPOliveiraLet al. Design parameters to develop porous structures: Case study applied to DLP 3D printing. In: International conference on flexible automation and intelligent manufacturing. Springer, pp.319–327.
24.
NogueiraPFolgadoJQuentalCet al. Metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasties: computational analysis of bone remodeling. Knee2022; 37: 10–19.
AlkentarRKladovasilakisNTzetzisDet al. Effects of pore size parameters of titanium additively manufactured lattice structures on the osseointegration process in orthopedic applications: a comprehensive review. Crystals2023; 13: 113.
27.
HelouMKaraS. Design, analysis and manufacturing of lattice structures: an overview. Int J Comput Integr Manuf2018; 31: 243–261.
28.
MahmoudDElbestawiMA. Lattice structures and functionally graded materials applications in additive manufacturing of orthopedic implants: a review. J Manuf Mater Process2017; 1: 13.
TemizAYaşarMKoçE. Fabrication of open-pore biodegradable magnesium alloy scaffold via infiltration technique. Int J Metalcast2021;.
31.
TemizAAlshemaryAZAkarNet al. Rapid casting of biodegradable porous magnesium scaffolds and electrophoretic deposition of 45S5 bioactive glass nanoparticles coatings on porous scaffolds: characterization and in vitro bioactivity analysis. Int J Metalcast2023; 17: 1871–1882.
32.
DemirSTemizAPehlivanF. The investigation of printing parameters effect on tensile characteristics for triply periodic minimal surface designs by taguchi. Polym Eng Sci2024; 64: 1209–1221.
33.
KarageorgiouVKaplanD. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials2005; 26: 5474–5491.
34.
PereiraHFCengizIFSilvaFSet al. Scaffolds and coatings for bone regeneration. J Mater Sci: Mater Med2020; 31: 1–16.
35.
da Costa SartoriTAIFerreiraJAOsiroDet al. Formation of different calcium phosphate phases on the surface of porous Al2O3-ZrO2 nanocomposites. J Eur Ceram Soc2018; 38: 743–751.
36.
van den DolderJFarberESpauwenPHet al. Bone tissue reconstruction using titanium fiber mesh combined with rat bone marrow stromal cells. Biomaterials2003; 24: 1745–1750.
37.
SikavitsasVIDolderJvdBancroftGNet al. Influence of the in vitro culture period on the in vivo performance of cell/titanium bone tissue-engineered constructs using a rat cranial critical size defect model. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: Off J Soc Biomater, Jpn Soc Biomater, Aust Soc Biomater Korean Soc Biomater2003; 67: 944–951.
38.
VehofJWHausMTDe RuijterAEet al. Bone formation in transforming growth factor beta-1-loaded titanium fiber mesh implants. Clin Oral Implants Res2002; 13: 94–102.
39.
AyersRASimskeSJBatemanTet al. Effect of nitinol implant porosity on cranial bone ingrowth and apposition after 6 weeks. J Biomed Mater Res: Off J Soc Biomater, Jpn Soc Biomater, Aust Soc Biomater1999; 45: 42–47.
40.
PilliarRM. Overview of surface variability of metallic endosseous dental implants: textured and porous surface-structured designs. Implant Dent1998; 7: 305–314.
41.
HarveyEBobynJTanzerMet al. Effect of flexibility of the femoral stem on bone-remodeling and fixation of the stem in a canine total hip arthroplasty model without cement. JBJS1999; 81: 93–107.
42.
ChangYSGuHOKobayashiMet al. Influence of various structure treatments on histological fixation of titanium implants. J Arthroplasty1998; 13: 816–825.
43.
GötzHMüllerMEmmelAet al. Effect of surface finish on the osseointegration of laser-treated titanium alloy implants. Biomaterials2004; 25: 4057–4064.
44.
SulYTJohanssonCBJeongYet al. Resonance frequency and removal torque analysis of implants with turned and anodized surface oxides. Clin Oral Implants Res2002; 13: 252–259.
45.
SulYTJohanssonCBPetronisSet al. Characteristics of the surface oxides on turned and electrochemically oxidized pure titanium implants up to dielectric breakdown:: the oxide thickness, micropore configurations, surface roughness, crystal structure and chemical composition. Biomaterials2002; 23: 491–501.
46.
D’LimaDDLemperleSMChenPCet al. Bone response to implant surface morphology. J Arthroplasty1998; 13: 928–934.
47.
AkinFAZreiqatHJordanSet al. Preparation and analysis of macroporous TiO2 films on Ti surfaces for bone–tissue implants. J Biomed Mater Res: Off J Soc Biomater, Jpn Soc Biomater, Aust Soc Biomater Korean Soc Biomater2001; 57: 588–596.
48.
DengFLiuLLiZet al. 3D printed Ti6Al4V bone scaffolds with different pore structure effects on bone ingrowth. J Biol Eng2021; 15: 1–13.
49.
GuYSunYShujaatSet al. 3D-printed porous Ti6Al4V scaffolds for long bone repair in animal models: a systematic review. J Orthop Surg Res2022; 17: 68.
50.
YangJLiYShiXet al. Design and analysis of three-dimensional printing of a porous titanium scaffold. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2021; 22: 1–11.
51.
TaniguchiNFujibayashiSTakemotoMet al. Effect of pore size on bone ingrowth into porous titanium implants fabricated by additive manufacturing: an in vivo experiment. Mater Sci Eng: C2016; 59: 690–701.
52.
KojuNNiraulaSFotovvatiB. Additively manufactured porous Ti6Al4V for bone implants: a review. Metals2022; 12: 687.
53.
BaiLGongCChenXet al. Additive manufacturing of customized metallic orthopedic implants: Materials, structures, and surface modifications. Metals2019; 9: 1004.
54.
ElsayedMGhazyMYoussefYet al. Optimization of SLM process parameters for Ti6Al4V medical implants. Rapid Prototyp J2019; 25: 433–447.
55.
NogueiraPCastresanaKMagrinhoJet al. Computational evaluation of the compressive properties of different lattice geometries to be used as temporary implants. Procedia Comput Sci2023; 217: 928–937.
56.
NogueiraPMagrinhoJPSilvaMBet al. Graded lattice structures for biodegradable temporary implants: Computational evaluation with two unit cell types. In: International Symposium on Industrial Engineering and Automation. Springer, pp.534–543.
57.
NogueiraPMagrinhoJPSilvaMBet al. Compression properties of cellular iron lattice structures used to mimic bone characteristics. Proce Inst Mech Eng, Part L: J Mater: Des Appl2024; 14644207241241799.
58.
StandardI. Metallic materials—bend test ISO 7438, 2005.
59.
StandardE. ISO 6507-1: 2007. metallic materials. vickers hardness test. Test Method2007.
60.
ChoiJPShinGHBrochuMet al. Densification behavior of 316L stainless steel parts fabricated by selective laser melting by variation in laser energy density. Mater Trans2016; 57: 1952–1959.
61.
TuchoWMLysneVHAustbøHet al. Investigation of effects of process parameters on microstructure and hardness of SLM manufactured SS316L. J Alloys Compd2018; 740: 910–925.
62.
GuoMGuDXiLet al. Selective laser melting additive manufacturing of pure tungsten: role of volumetric energy density on densification, microstructure and mechanical properties. Int J Refract Met Hard Mater2019; 84: 105025.
63.
ZhangZZhangTSunCet al. Understanding melt pool behavior of 316L stainless steel in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Micromachines2024; 15: 170.
