Page 503 - IJB-10-1
P. 503

International Journal of Bioprinting                          Macro and micro structure of a 3D-printed implant




            defect bone volume while removing the corresponding area   tetrahedral elements. The differences in the displacement/
            to the tibial shaft to prevent any potential interference with   stress among the five models were within 2% (see Table 2),
            subsequent total knee arthroplasty procedures (Figure 1b).   indicating that the convergence test was achieved. After the
            This approach resulted in the creation of a solid WS with a   convergence test, the resulting 3D FE model was meshed
            crescent cross-section shape.                      using a mesh size of 1 mm for the bone and 0.5 mm for
               To accommodate the restricted surgical space, three bone   the following simulated models, and mesh element pattern
            screws were designated for placement on the medial-anterior   outcomes are depicted in Figure 2. Both the aspect ratio
            side of the WS. Self-locking screws of various specifications   and Jacobian ratio were assessed close to 1 to gauge the
            were carefully selected from commercial bone fixation screws   mesh quality in the ANSYS software.
            (Plates & Screws System II, A Plus Biotechnology Co., Ltd.,   Regarding the interfacial mimics, surface-to-surface
            New Taipei City, Taiwan). Two screws with a diameter of 3.5   contact elements with frictional type (friction coefficient
            mm were inserted from the medial-anterior to the lateral-  of 0.4) provided in ANSYS were applied on the interface
            posterior sides, positioned perpendicular to the tangent line   between  the  WS and  the  tibia  osteotomy  to  simulate
            of the medial-anterior curve at the crescent cross-section and   frictional behavior treated as a bone non-fused state. The
            inclined 30 degrees upward to the transverse plane. As for   frictional contact element allowed the two contacting parts
            the third screw (5.0 mm in diameter), it was designed to be   to carry shear stresses up to a certain magnitude across their
            inserted posteriorly to the second screw, angled 15° inward   interface before they start sliding relative to each other. Once
            to the second screw axis, and inclined 15°s downward to the   the shear stress was exceeded, the two parts slide relative to
            transverse plane (Figure 1c). These screw placements were   each other and the relative micromotions and compressive
            devised to ensure optimal fixation and stability within the   stress transfer could be obtained directly from the contact
            given surgical constraints.                        simulation problems, while the remaining contact interfaces
                                                               for different components, such as screw/WS and screw/
            2.2. Topology optimization and lattice design for   bone interfaces, were considered fully bonded.
                                                                                                   10
            wedge-shaped spacer
            A preliminary FE analysis was necessary before conducting   Loading and boundary conditions were assumed
            the structural optimization analysis of the solid WS. The   based on pertinent study on knee load by other
            bone defect tibial model, composed of cortical bone,   investigators and illustrated in  Figure 3a. 26-29  The distal
            cancellous bone, a solid WS made of Ti6Al4V material,   tibia was immobilized with zero degree of freedom to
            and commercially available conventional bone screws,   emulate distal fixation. A vertical axial force of 2200 N
            was imported into the ANSYS software (ANSYS, v21.1,   was applied to the tibial plateau to replicate the maximum
            ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA, USA) to construct the FE   load condition during a gait cycle under full weight-
            model. The material properties for each component were   bearing, equivalent to 3.3 times the body weight of a 68
            assigned according to relevant literature and assumed as   kg patient. The force distribution was set at 60% on the
            homogeneous, isotropic, and linear elastic materials 18-25  (as   medial tibial plateau and 40% on the lateral tibial plateau.
            indicated in Table 1).                             Additionally, a clockwise torque of 5000 N·mm was
                                                               applied to the proximal tibial plateau along the defined Z
               A convergence test was used to guarantee that our
            numerical model reached the converged results to verify   axis, as depicted in Figure 3a. Full constraint was applied
                                                               to the distal end of the tibial osteotomy model as the
            the FE analysis results, and that no further mesh refinement   boundary condition.
            was necessary. All solid models were derived from a
            single tibia osteotomy mesh pattern to avoid quantitative   The solid WS model underwent structural
            differences  in  the  stress/strain  values  in  the  models.   optimization through topology optimization integrated
            Based  on  the  same  solid model,  single  mesh  patterns   with the FE analysis. The objective was to minimize
            with element size 3.5 mm, 2.8 mm, 1.8 mm, 1.2 mm, and   compliance, which is synonymous with maximizing
            1.0 mm for bone and 2.5 mm, 2.0 mm, 1.4 mm, 0.8 mm,   stiffness, while adhering to a specified 20% volume
            and 0.5 mm for implant were generated using quadratic   constraint. This structural optimization aimed to

            Table 1. Material properties assigned in the FE analysis

             Material                            Young’s modulus (GPa)        Poisson’s ratio
             Cortical bone (average) 18-25       16.744                       0.36
             Cancellous bone (average) 23-25     4.6                          0.3
             Self-testing                        111                          0.33


            Volume 10 Issue 1 (2024)                       495                          https://doi.org/10.36922/ijb.1584
   498   499   500   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508