MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117142415 · doi:10.3390/met16010017

Therapeutic Potential of 3D-Printed Alloys as Drug-Eluting Implants: Current Progress

2025· article· en· W7117142415 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Louise Carson, Chi-Wai Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueMetals · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnesium Alloys: Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsBiocompatibilityAlloyPassivationCoatingMicrostructureMagnesium alloySurface modification

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In physiological environments, several metallic alloys, including titanium, stainless steel, cobalt–chromium, and emerging biodegradable systems such as magnesium (Mg), zinc (Zn), and iron (Fe), offer mechanical properties and biocompatibility suitable for load-bearing implants. With the rapid advancement of 3D printing technologies, these alloys can now be fabricated into patient-specific, complex geometries that enhance both structural performance and functional integration. Beyond serving as structural supports, 3D-printed alloys are increasingly engineered as localized drug-delivery platforms to release anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, anticancer, and osteogenic agents at the implant–tissue interface, addressing the dual clinical needs of site-specific therapy and mechanical stabilization. Nevertheless, this field remains underexplored because studies differ widely in alloy chemistry, surface topography, porosity, coating strategy, drug-loading methods, and release profiles, as well as in how material degradation or passivation interacts with pharmacokinetics. For the first time, this review consolidates drug-loading and elution strategies across 3D-printed alloy platforms, compares therapeutic categories in relation to alloy and coating types, and critically evaluates how the surface microstructure or alloy geometry influences release behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetalsSame topicMagnesium Alloys: Properties and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207