» Articles » PMID: 36418789

The Biomechanical Behavior of 3D Printed Human Femoral Bones Based on Generic and Patient-specific Geometries

Overview
Journal 3D Print Med
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2022 Nov 23
PMID 36418789
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Bone is a highly complex composite material which makes it hard to find appropriate artificial surrogates for patient-specific biomechanical testing. Despite various options of commercially available bones with generic geometries, these are either biomechanically not very realistic or rather expensive.

Methods: In this work, additive manufacturing was used for the fabrication of artificial femoral bones. These were based on CT images of four different commercially available femoral bone surrogates and three human bones with varying bone density. The models were 3D printed using a low-budget fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printer and PLA filament. The infill density was mechanically calibrated and varying cortical thickness was used. Compression tests of proximal femora simulating stance were performed and the biomechanical behavior concerning ultimate force, spring stiffness, and fracture pattern were evaluated as well as compared to the results of commercial and cadaveric bones.

Results: Regarding the ultimate forces and spring stiffness, the 3D printed analogs showed mechanical behavior closer to their real counterparts than the commercially available polyurethan-based surrogates. Furthermore, the increase in ultimate force with increasing bone density observed in human femoral bones could be reproduced well. Also, the fracture patterns observed match well with fracture patterns observed in human hip injuries.

Conclusion: Consequently, the methods presented here show to be a promising alternative for artificial generic surrogates concerning femoral strength testing. The manufacturing is straightforward, cheap, and patient-specific geometries are possible.

Citing Articles

Elastic properties of 3D printed clavicles are closer to cadaveric bones of elderly donors than commercial synthetic bones.

Strand K, Silvestro E, Naqvi I, Hast M J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2024; 160:106774.

PMID: 39413544 PMC: 11560652. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2024.106774.


Biomechanical assessment and comparison of fixation methods for bilateral sacroiliac joint luxation in 3D-printed feline pelvic bone models.

Jaroensong T, Lertjarugate K, Kumnuansil N, Puettimas P, Patanavibul P, Penpiratkul S Vet World. 2024; 17(8):1798-1802.

PMID: 39328430 PMC: 11422644. DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2024.1798-1802.


Emerging Biomedical and Clinical Applications of 3D-Printed Poly(Lactic Acid)-Based Devices and Delivery Systems.

Barcena A, Ravi P, Kundu S, Tappa K Bioengineering (Basel). 2024; 11(7).

PMID: 39061787 PMC: 11273440. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering11070705.


Dimensional accuracy and precision and surgeon perception of additively manufactured bone models: effect of manufacturing technology and part orientation.

Benca E, Eckhart B, Stoegner A, Unger E, Bittner-Frank M, Strassl A 3D Print Med. 2024; 10(1):5.

PMID: 38376810 PMC: 10877873. DOI: 10.1186/s41205-024-00203-4.

References
1.
Cherkasskiy L, Caffrey J, Szewczyk A, Cory E, Bomar J, Farnsworth C . Patient-specific 3D models aid planning for triplane proximal femoral osteotomy in slipped capital femoral epiphysis. J Child Orthop. 2017; 11(2):147-153. PMC: 5421346. DOI: 10.1302/1863-2548-11-170277. View

2.
Heiner A, Brown T . Structural properties of a new design of composite replicate femurs and tibias. J Biomech. 2001; 34(6):773-81. DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(01)00015-x. View

3.
Link T, Vieth V, Langenberg R, Meier N, Lotter A, Newitt D . Structure analysis of high resolution magnetic resonance imaging of the proximal femur: in vitro correlation with biomechanical strength and BMD. Calcif Tissue Int. 2002; 72(2):156-65. DOI: 10.1007/s00223-001-2132-5. View

4.
Ma S, Tang Q, Feng Q, Song J, Han X, Guo F . Mechanical behaviours and mass transport properties of bone-mimicking scaffolds consisted of gyroid structures manufactured using selective laser melting. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2019; 93:158-169. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.01.023. View

5.
Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin J, Pujol S . 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012; 30(9):1323-41. PMC: 3466397. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001. View