Porous calcium polyphosphate bone substitutes: Additive manufacturing versus conventional gravity sinter processing—Effect on structure and mechanical properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Porous calcium polyphosphate (CPP) structures proposed as bone-substitute implants and made by sintering CPP powders to form bending test samples of approximately 35 vol % porosity were machined from preformed blocks made either by additive manufacturing (AM) or conventional gravity sintering (CS) methods and the structure and mechanical characteristics of samples so made were compared. AM-made samples displayed higher bending strengths (≈1.2-1.4 times greater than CS-made samples), whereas elastic constant (i.e., effective elastic modulus of the porous structures) that is determined by material elastic modulus and structural geometry of the samples was ≈1.9-2.3 times greater for AM-made samples. X-ray diffraction analysis showed that samples made by either method displayed the same crystal structure forming β-CPP after sinter annealing. The material elastic modulus, E, determined using nanoindentation tests also showed the same value for both sample types (i.e., E ≈ 64 GPa). Examination of the porous structures indicated that significantly larger sinter necks resulted in the AM-made samples which presumably resulted in the higher mechanical properties. The development of mechanical properties was attributed to the different sinter anneal procedures required to make 35 vol % porous samples by the two methods. A primary objective of the present study, in addition to reporting on bending strength and sample stiffness (elastic constant) characteristics, was to determine why the two processes resulted in the observed mechanical property differences for samples of equivalent volume percentage of porosity. An understanding of the fundamental reason(s) for the observed effect is considered important for developing improved processes for preparation of porous CPP implants as bone substitutes for use in high load-bearing skeletal sites.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".