An Additively Manufactured Model for Preclinical Testing of Cervical Devices

Overview

Journal JOR Spine

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2024 Jan 15

PMID 38222806

Authors

Jenna M Wahbeh

Erika Hookasian

John Lama

Labiba Alam

Sang-Hyun Park

Sophia N Sangiorgio

Edward Ebramzadeh

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Composite models have become commonplace for the assessment of fixation and stability of total joint replacements; however, there are no comparable models for the cervical spine to evaluate fixation. The goal of this study was to create the framework for a tunable non-homogeneous model of cervical vertebral body by identifying the relationships between strength, in-fill density, and lattice structure and creating a final architectural framework for specific strengths to be applied to the model.

Methods: The range of material properties for cervical spine were identified from literature. Using additive manufacturing software, rectangular prints with three lattice structures, gyroid, triangle, zig-zag, and a range of in-fill densities were 3D-printed. The compressive and shear strengths for all combinations were calculated in the axial and coronal planes. Eleven unique vertebral regions were selected to represent the distribution of density. Each bone density was converted to strength and subsequently correlated to the lattice structure and in-fill density with the desired material properties. Finally, a complete cervical vertebra model was 3D-printed to ensure sufficient print quality.

Results: Materials testing identified a relationship between in-fill densities and strength for all lattice structures. The axial compressive strength of the gyroid specimens ranged from 1.5 MPa at 10% infill to 31.3 MPa at 100% infill and the triangle structure ranged from 2.7 MPa at 10% infill to 58.4 MPa at 100% infill. Based on these results, a cervical vertebra model was created utilizing cervical cancellous strength values and the corresponding in-fill density and lattice structure combination. This model was then printed with 11 different in-fill densities ranging from 33% gyroid to 84% triangle to ensure successful integration of the non-homogeneous in-fill densities and lattice structures.

Conclusions: The findings from this study introduced a framework for using additive manufacturing to create a tunable, customizable biomimetic model of a cervical vertebra.

Citing Articles

An additively manufactured model for preclinical testing of cervical devices.

Wahbeh J, Hookasian E, Lama J, Alam L, Park S, Sangiorgio S JOR Spine. 2024; 7(1):e1285.

PMID: 38222806 PMC: 10782067. DOI: 10.1002/jsp2.1285.

References

Zehra U, Robson-Brown K, Adams M, Dolan P . Porosity and Thickness of the Vertebral Endplate Depend on Local Mechanical Loading. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 40(15):1173-80. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000925. View

Goldstein S . The mechanical properties of trabecular bone: dependence on anatomic location and function. J Biomech. 1987; 20(11-12):1055-61. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9290(87)90023-6. View

Sangiorgio S, Ebramzadeh E, Longjohn D, Dorr L . Effects of dorsal flanges on fixation of a cemented total hip replacement femoral stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86(4):813-20. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200404000-00022. View

Li B, Aspden R . Composition and mechanical properties of cancellous bone from the femoral head of patients with osteoporosis or osteoarthritis. J Bone Miner Res. 1997; 12(4):641-51. DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.4.641. View

Richard C, Kwok T . Analysis and Design of Lattice Structures for Rapid-Investment Casting. Materials (Basel). 2021; 14(17). PMC: 8432677. DOI: 10.3390/ma14174867. View

Bland J, Boushey D . Anatomy and physiology of the cervical spine. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1990; 20(1):1-20. DOI: 10.1016/0049-0172(90)90090-3. View

Nicholson P, Cheng X, Lowet G, Boonen S, Davie M, Dequeker J . Structural and material mechanical properties of human vertebral cancellous bone. Med Eng Phys. 1998; 19(8):729-37. DOI: 10.1016/s1350-4533(97)00030-1. View

Vedantam A, Eckardt G, Wang M, Schmit B, Kurpad S . Clinical correlates of high cervical fractional anisotropy in acute cervical spinal cord injury. World Neurosurg. 2013; 83(5):824-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2013.09.017. View

Small S, Hensley S, Cook P, Stevens R, Rogge R, Meding J . Characterization of Femoral Component Initial Stability and Cortical Strain in a Reduced Stem-Length Design. J Arthroplasty. 2016; 32(2):601-609. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.07.033. View

10.

Nunley P, Cavanaugh D, Kerr 3rd E, Utter P, Campbell P, Frank K . Heterotopic Ossification After Cervical Total Disc Replacement at 7 Years-Prevalence, Progression, Clinical Implications, and Risk Factors. Int J Spine Surg. 2018; 12(3):352-361. PMC: 6159737. DOI: 10.14444/5041. View

11.

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

12.

Patwardhan A, Tzermiadianos M, Tsitsopoulos P, Voronov L, Renner S, Reo M . Primary and coupled motions after cervical total disc replacement using a compressible six-degree-of-freedom prosthesis. Eur Spine J. 2010; 21 Suppl 5:S618-29. PMC: 3377800. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1575-7. View

13.

Timercan A, Sheremetyev V, Brailovski V . Mechanical properties and fluid permeability of gyroid and diamond lattice structures for intervertebral devices: functional requirements and comparative analysis. Sci Technol Adv Mater. 2021; 22(1):285-300. PMC: 8079052. DOI: 10.1080/14686996.2021.1907222. View

14.

Fleps I, Bahaloo H, Zysset P, Ferguson S, Palsson H, Helgason B . Empirical relationships between bone density and ultimate strength: A literature review. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020; 110:103866. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103866. View

15.

Bohl M, Mooney M, Repp G, Nakaji P, Chang S, Turner J . The Barrow Biomimetic Spine: Fluoroscopic Analysis of a Synthetic Spine Model Made of Variable 3D-printed Materials and Print Parameters. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018; 43(23):E1368-E1375. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002715. View

16.

Hossain U, Ghouse S, Nai K, Jeffers J . Mechanical and morphological properties of additively manufactured SS316L and Ti6Al4V micro-struts as a function of build angle. Addit Manuf. 2021; 46:None. PMC: 8448581. DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2021.102050. View

17.

Wilke H, Wenger K, Claes L . Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J. 1998; 7(2):148-54. PMC: 3611233. DOI: 10.1007/s005860050045. View

18.

McAfee P, Cunningham B, Dmitriev A, Hu N, Kim S, Cappuccino A . Cervical disc replacement-porous coated motion prosthesis: a comparative biomechanical analysis showing the key role of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28(20):S176-85. DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000092219.28382.0C. View

19.

Al-Ketan O, Lee D, Rowshan R, Abu Al-Rub R . Functionally graded and multi-morphology sheet TPMS lattices: Design, manufacturing, and mechanical properties. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2019; 102:103520. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103520. View

20.

Cristofolini L, Affatato S, Erani P, Leardini W, Tigani D, Viceconti M . Long-term implant-bone fixation of the femoral component in total knee replacement. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2008; 222(3):319-31. DOI: 10.1243/09544119JEIM328. View