Cargando…
Additively manufactured titanium scaffolds and osteointegration - meta-analyses and moderator-analyses of in vivo biomechanical testing
INTRODUCTION: Maximizing osteointegration potential of three-dimensionally-printed porous titanium (3DPPT) is an ongoing focus in biomaterial research. Many strategies are proposed and tested but there is no weighted comparison of results. METHODS: We systematically searched Pubmed and Embase to obt...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8191027/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34112248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40824-021-00216-8 |
_version_ | 1783705795104342016 |
---|---|
author | Cleemput, Simon Huys, Stijn E. F. Cleymaet, Robbert Cools, Wilfried Mommaerts, Maurice Y. |
author_facet | Cleemput, Simon Huys, Stijn E. F. Cleymaet, Robbert Cools, Wilfried Mommaerts, Maurice Y. |
author_sort | Cleemput, Simon |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Maximizing osteointegration potential of three-dimensionally-printed porous titanium (3DPPT) is an ongoing focus in biomaterial research. Many strategies are proposed and tested but there is no weighted comparison of results. METHODS: We systematically searched Pubmed and Embase to obtain two pools of 3DPPT studies that performed mechanical implant-removal testing in animal models and whose characteristics were sufficiently similar to compare the outcomes in meta-analyses (MAs). We expanded these MAs to multivariable meta-regressions (moderator analysis) to verify whether statistical models including reported scaffold features (e.g., “pore-size”, “porosity”, “type of unit cell”) or post-printing treatments (e.g., surface treatments, adding agents) could explain the observed differences in treatment effects (expressed as shear strength of bone-titanium interface). RESULTS: “Animal type” (species of animal in which the 3DPPT was implanted) and “type of post-treatment” (treatment performed after 3D printing) were moderators providing statistically significant models for differences in mechanical removal strength. An interaction model with covariables “pore-size” and “porosity” in a rabbit subgroup analysis (the most reported animal model) was also significant. Impact of other moderators (including “time” and “location of implant”) was not statistically significant. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest a stronger effect from porosity in a rat than in a sheep model. Additionally, adding a calcium-containing layer does not improve removal strength but the other post-treatments do. Our results provide overview and new insights, but little narrowing of existing value ranges. Consequent reporting of 3DPPT characteristics, standardized comparison, and expression of porosity in terms of surface roughness could help tackle these existing dilemmas. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8191027 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81910272021-06-10 Additively manufactured titanium scaffolds and osteointegration - meta-analyses and moderator-analyses of in vivo biomechanical testing Cleemput, Simon Huys, Stijn E. F. Cleymaet, Robbert Cools, Wilfried Mommaerts, Maurice Y. Biomater Res Review INTRODUCTION: Maximizing osteointegration potential of three-dimensionally-printed porous titanium (3DPPT) is an ongoing focus in biomaterial research. Many strategies are proposed and tested but there is no weighted comparison of results. METHODS: We systematically searched Pubmed and Embase to obtain two pools of 3DPPT studies that performed mechanical implant-removal testing in animal models and whose characteristics were sufficiently similar to compare the outcomes in meta-analyses (MAs). We expanded these MAs to multivariable meta-regressions (moderator analysis) to verify whether statistical models including reported scaffold features (e.g., “pore-size”, “porosity”, “type of unit cell”) or post-printing treatments (e.g., surface treatments, adding agents) could explain the observed differences in treatment effects (expressed as shear strength of bone-titanium interface). RESULTS: “Animal type” (species of animal in which the 3DPPT was implanted) and “type of post-treatment” (treatment performed after 3D printing) were moderators providing statistically significant models for differences in mechanical removal strength. An interaction model with covariables “pore-size” and “porosity” in a rabbit subgroup analysis (the most reported animal model) was also significant. Impact of other moderators (including “time” and “location of implant”) was not statistically significant. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest a stronger effect from porosity in a rat than in a sheep model. Additionally, adding a calcium-containing layer does not improve removal strength but the other post-treatments do. Our results provide overview and new insights, but little narrowing of existing value ranges. Consequent reporting of 3DPPT characteristics, standardized comparison, and expression of porosity in terms of surface roughness could help tackle these existing dilemmas. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] BioMed Central 2021-06-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8191027/ /pubmed/34112248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40824-021-00216-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Review Cleemput, Simon Huys, Stijn E. F. Cleymaet, Robbert Cools, Wilfried Mommaerts, Maurice Y. Additively manufactured titanium scaffolds and osteointegration - meta-analyses and moderator-analyses of in vivo biomechanical testing |
title | Additively manufactured titanium scaffolds and osteointegration - meta-analyses and moderator-analyses of in vivo biomechanical testing |
title_full | Additively manufactured titanium scaffolds and osteointegration - meta-analyses and moderator-analyses of in vivo biomechanical testing |
title_fullStr | Additively manufactured titanium scaffolds and osteointegration - meta-analyses and moderator-analyses of in vivo biomechanical testing |
title_full_unstemmed | Additively manufactured titanium scaffolds and osteointegration - meta-analyses and moderator-analyses of in vivo biomechanical testing |
title_short | Additively manufactured titanium scaffolds and osteointegration - meta-analyses and moderator-analyses of in vivo biomechanical testing |
title_sort | additively manufactured titanium scaffolds and osteointegration - meta-analyses and moderator-analyses of in vivo biomechanical testing |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8191027/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34112248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40824-021-00216-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cleemputsimon additivelymanufacturedtitaniumscaffoldsandosteointegrationmetaanalysesandmoderatoranalysesofinvivobiomechanicaltesting AT huysstijnef additivelymanufacturedtitaniumscaffoldsandosteointegrationmetaanalysesandmoderatoranalysesofinvivobiomechanicaltesting AT cleymaetrobbert additivelymanufacturedtitaniumscaffoldsandosteointegrationmetaanalysesandmoderatoranalysesofinvivobiomechanicaltesting AT coolswilfried additivelymanufacturedtitaniumscaffoldsandosteointegrationmetaanalysesandmoderatoranalysesofinvivobiomechanicaltesting AT mommaertsmauricey additivelymanufacturedtitaniumscaffoldsandosteointegrationmetaanalysesandmoderatoranalysesofinvivobiomechanicaltesting |