MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Additively manufactured metallic biomaterials

2021· review· en· W4200078716 on OpenAlexafffund
Elham Davoodi, Hossein Montazerian, Anooshe Sadat Mirhakimi, Masoud Zhianmanesh, Osezua Ibhadode, Shahriar Imani Shahabad, Reza Esmaeilizadeh, Einollah Sarikhani, Sahar Toorandaz, Shima A. Sarabi, Rohollah Nasiri, Yangzhi Zhu, Javad Kadkhodapour, Bingbing Li, Ali Khademhosseini, Ehsan Toyserkani

Bibliographic record

VenueBioactive Materials · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsScaffoldBiocompatible materialMaterials scienceNanotechnologyTissue engineeringComputer scienceDurabilityPorosityFabricationMechanical engineeringManufacturing engineeringBiomedical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metal additive manufacturing (AM) has led to an evolution in the design and fabrication of hard tissue substitutes, enabling personalized implants to address each patient's specific needs. In addition, internal pore architectures integrated within additively manufactured scaffolds, have provided an opportunity to further develop and engineer functional implants for better tissue integration, and long-term durability. In this review, the latest advances in different aspects of the design and manufacturing of additively manufactured metallic biomaterials are highlighted. After introducing metal AM processes, biocompatible metals adapted for integration with AM machines are presented. Then, we elaborate on the tools and approaches undertaken for the design of porous scaffold with engineered internal architecture including, topology optimization techniques, as well as unit cell patterns based on lattice networks, and triply periodic minimal surface. Here, the new possibilities brought by the functionally gradient porous structures to meet the conflicting scaffold design requirements are thoroughly discussed. Subsequently, the design constraints and physical characteristics of the additively manufactured constructs are reviewed in terms of input parameters such as design features and AM processing parameters. We assess the proposed applications of additively manufactured implants for regeneration of different tissue types and the efforts made towards their clinical translation. Finally, we conclude the review with the emerging directions and perspectives for further development of AM in the medical industry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations219
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioactive MaterialsSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207