2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.08.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparative study on the nanoindentation behavior, wear resistance and in vitro biocompatibility of SLM manufactured CP–Ti and EBM manufactured Ti64 gyroid scaffolds

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
25
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 84 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
1
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The implant surface roughness fabricated using SLM technology (arithmetical mean roughness (Ra): 5–20 µm)) is smoother than the EBM (Ra: 20–50 µm) counterpart, because of its smaller laser spot size and thinner layer thickness (30–50 vs. 50–70 µm), smaller powder size (average diameter 30–50 vs. 60–80 µm), and lower energy input [ 94 , 95 ]. Many reports have proved that titanium and its alloys prepared using SLM and EBM methods improved the osseointegration [ 96 ]. Nevertheless, a common standard for the optimum roughness has not been introduced yet.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The implant surface roughness fabricated using SLM technology (arithmetical mean roughness (Ra): 5–20 µm)) is smoother than the EBM (Ra: 20–50 µm) counterpart, because of its smaller laser spot size and thinner layer thickness (30–50 vs. 50–70 µm), smaller powder size (average diameter 30–50 vs. 60–80 µm), and lower energy input [ 94 , 95 ]. Many reports have proved that titanium and its alloys prepared using SLM and EBM methods improved the osseointegration [ 96 ]. Nevertheless, a common standard for the optimum roughness has not been introduced yet.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this line, Wang et al found good haemocompatibility, no dermal irritation and no skin allergic reaction of Ti-6Al-4V alloy with both EBM and SLM processes [184]. In another comparative study between EBM and SLM processes, it was observed that SLM manufactured commercially pure titanium (CP-Ti) scaffolds presented higher cell viability and cell adhesion than EBM manufactured Ti-6Al-4V (Ti64) scaffolds [185]. The surface finish of the printed parts is an important factor influencing biocompatibility, since it affects the cell attachment, proliferation and differentiation [38].…”
Section: Comparison Of the Am Techniques And Materials Used For Metalmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…In recent years, many researchers have devoted their studies to 3D printing of Ti6Al4V titanium alloy for biomedical applications [44][45][46][47]. Recently, a few research papers have reported comparative studies between the two techniques to highlight the differences mostly in terms of corrosion resistance and fatigue life of SLM and EBM titanium samples [48,49]. Precisely, the surface defects of the SLM and EBM samples, which remained after Hot Isostatic Pressuring (HIPing)and machining, have been demonstrated as crucial for the stress concentration during fatigue tests, being the dominant mechanisms for lifetimes lower than 107 cycles [50,51].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%