Harry Hothi, Johann Henckel, Arya Nicum, Anna Di Laura, Klaus Schlueter-Brust, Alister Hart
{"title":"对一家制造商生产的传统髋臼壳和快速成型髋臼壳进行比较分析。","authors":"Harry Hothi, Johann Henckel, Arya Nicum, Anna Di Laura, Klaus Schlueter-Brust, Alister Hart","doi":"10.1186/s41205-024-00233-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Trident II Tritanium acetabular shell is additively manufactured (3D printed), based on the established Trident 'I' Tritanium shell, produced using conventional methods; this study characterised their differences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We obtained 5 Trident I (T1) and 5 Trident II (T2) shells sized 52 mm, 54 mm (n = 3) and 60 mm. We measured their: mass, shell-liner engaging surface roughness, roundness, wall thickness, the depth of the bone-facing porous layer, porosity, and the number, volume and location of structural voids.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mass varied by up to 13.44 g. The T1 and T2 shells had a median internal roughness of 0.18 μm and 0.43 μm, (p < 0.001) and the median departure from roundness was 6.9 μm and 8.9 μm, (p < 0.001). The 54 mm and 60 mm T2 shell walls were 37% and 29% thinner than their T1 counterparts (p < 0.01). The T2 shells had irregular porous structures, shallower in depth by 11-27% (p < 0.001) than T1 shells, which had repeating mesh units; the overall porosity was comparable (54%). All T2 shells had between 115 and 3415 structural voids, compared with two T1 shells containing 21 and 31 voids. There was no difference in the depth of the porous layer for the 54 mm T2 shells (p = 0.068), whilst T1 shells did show variability (p < 0.01). Both groups showed a variability in surface roughness and roundness (p < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This is the first study to compare shells from a single manufacturer, produced using conventional and additive methods. This data will help interpret the performance of the 3D printed Trident II as longer-term clinical data is generated.</p>","PeriodicalId":72036,"journal":{"name":"3D printing in medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11439207/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of conventionally and additively manufactured acetabular shells from a single manufacturer.\",\"authors\":\"Harry Hothi, Johann Henckel, Arya Nicum, Anna Di Laura, Klaus Schlueter-Brust, Alister Hart\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41205-024-00233-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Trident II Tritanium acetabular shell is additively manufactured (3D printed), based on the established Trident 'I' Tritanium shell, produced using conventional methods; this study characterised their differences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We obtained 5 Trident I (T1) and 5 Trident II (T2) shells sized 52 mm, 54 mm (n = 3) and 60 mm. We measured their: mass, shell-liner engaging surface roughness, roundness, wall thickness, the depth of the bone-facing porous layer, porosity, and the number, volume and location of structural voids.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mass varied by up to 13.44 g. The T1 and T2 shells had a median internal roughness of 0.18 μm and 0.43 μm, (p < 0.001) and the median departure from roundness was 6.9 μm and 8.9 μm, (p < 0.001). The 54 mm and 60 mm T2 shell walls were 37% and 29% thinner than their T1 counterparts (p < 0.01). The T2 shells had irregular porous structures, shallower in depth by 11-27% (p < 0.001) than T1 shells, which had repeating mesh units; the overall porosity was comparable (54%). All T2 shells had between 115 and 3415 structural voids, compared with two T1 shells containing 21 and 31 voids. There was no difference in the depth of the porous layer for the 54 mm T2 shells (p = 0.068), whilst T1 shells did show variability (p < 0.01). Both groups showed a variability in surface roughness and roundness (p < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This is the first study to compare shells from a single manufacturer, produced using conventional and additive methods. This data will help interpret the performance of the 3D printed Trident II as longer-term clinical data is generated.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72036,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"3D printing in medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11439207/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"3D printing in medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-024-00233-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"3D printing in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-024-00233-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:Trident II Tritanium髋臼壳是添加剂制造(3D打印)的,它以已确立的Trident'I'Tritanium壳为基础,采用传统方法生产;本研究描述了它们之间的差异:我们获得了 5 个三叉戟 I 型(T1)和 5 个三叉戟 II 型(T2)髋臼壳,尺寸分别为 52 毫米、54 毫米(n = 3)和 60 毫米。我们测量了它们的质量、外壳衬里啮合表面粗糙度、圆度、壁厚、骨面多孔层深度、孔隙率以及结构空隙的数量、体积和位置:T1 和 T2 外壳的内部粗糙度中值分别为 0.18 μm 和 0.43 μm(p 结论:这是首次对外壳的内部粗糙度进行比较的研究:这是首次对单一制造商使用传统方法和添加剂方法生产的壳体进行比较的研究。随着长期临床数据的产生,这些数据将有助于解释 3D 打印三叉戟 II 的性能。
Comparative analysis of conventionally and additively manufactured acetabular shells from a single manufacturer.
Background: The Trident II Tritanium acetabular shell is additively manufactured (3D printed), based on the established Trident 'I' Tritanium shell, produced using conventional methods; this study characterised their differences.
Methods: We obtained 5 Trident I (T1) and 5 Trident II (T2) shells sized 52 mm, 54 mm (n = 3) and 60 mm. We measured their: mass, shell-liner engaging surface roughness, roundness, wall thickness, the depth of the bone-facing porous layer, porosity, and the number, volume and location of structural voids.
Results: The mass varied by up to 13.44 g. The T1 and T2 shells had a median internal roughness of 0.18 μm and 0.43 μm, (p < 0.001) and the median departure from roundness was 6.9 μm and 8.9 μm, (p < 0.001). The 54 mm and 60 mm T2 shell walls were 37% and 29% thinner than their T1 counterparts (p < 0.01). The T2 shells had irregular porous structures, shallower in depth by 11-27% (p < 0.001) than T1 shells, which had repeating mesh units; the overall porosity was comparable (54%). All T2 shells had between 115 and 3415 structural voids, compared with two T1 shells containing 21 and 31 voids. There was no difference in the depth of the porous layer for the 54 mm T2 shells (p = 0.068), whilst T1 shells did show variability (p < 0.01). Both groups showed a variability in surface roughness and roundness (p < 0.01).
Conclusion: This is the first study to compare shells from a single manufacturer, produced using conventional and additive methods. This data will help interpret the performance of the 3D printed Trident II as longer-term clinical data is generated.