Architectural bone parameters and the relationship to titanium lattice design for powder bed fusion additive manufacturing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additive manufacturing (AM) of titanium (Ti) and Ti-6Al-4V lattices has been proposed for bone implants and augmentation devices. Ti and Ti-6Al-4V have favourable biocompatibility, corrosion resistance and fatigue strength for bone applications; yet, the optimal parameters for Ti-6Al-4V lattice designs corresponding to the natural micro- and meso-scale architecture of human trabecular and cortical bone are not well understood. A comprehensive review was completed to compare the natural lattice architecture properties in human bone to Ti and Ti-6Al-4V lattice structures for bone replacement and repair. Ti and Ti-6Al-4V lattice porosity has varied from 15% to 97% with most studies reporting a porosity between 50-70%. Cortical bone is roughly 5-15% porous and lattices with 50-70% porosity are able to achieve comparable stiffness, compressive strength, and yield strength. Trabecular bone has a reported porosity range from 70-90%, with trabecular thickness varying from 120-200 {\mu}m. Existing powder bed fusion technologies have produced strut and wall thicknesses ranging from 200-1669 {\mu}m. This suggests limited overlap between current AM of Ti and Ti-6Al-4V lattice structures and trabecular bone architecture, indicating that replicating natural trabecular bone parameters with latticing is prohibitively challenging. This review contributes to the body of knowledge by identifying the correspondence of Ti and Ti-6Al-4V lattices to the natural parameters of bone microarchitectures, and provides further guidance on the design and AM recommendations towards addressing recognized performance gaps with powder bed fusion technologies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".