in vitro and in vivo Performance of Implants Using Additive Manufacturing vs. Commercially Available Implants

The study objectives were to evaluate the in vitro and in vivo performance of additive manufacturing (AM) Ti6Al4V ELI alloy compared to that of a commercially available dental implant. Two AM shapes with the solid or lattice structures on the solid substrate were used: in vitro test: disk shapes (10.0 mm/dia. 2.0 mm/thick) and in vivo test: AM shapes matching the overall geometry of a commercial implant (3.0 mm/dia. 8.0 mm/length). Six disk specimens were placed in direct contact with Balb/c 3T3 fibroblasts for 72 h. Cytotoxicity was assessed with adenosine triphosphate activity. Four implant-shaped specimens were placed in the femurs of three rabbits and retrieved after 6 weeks. Osseointegration was evaluated by push-out testing and histological analysis. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Surface roughness (µm) of AM-solid, AM-lattice, and a commercial implant were 8.02, 9.00, and 1.46, respectively. Cytotoxicity was not statistically different compared to surface configuration and Teflon® controls (p > 0.05). Push-out test results were not significant between implants: the shear stiffness of commercial > AM-lattice > AM-solid (p > 0.05). Histological analysis demonstrated osseointegration without inflammatory responses in the surrounding bone tissue for all implants. While some processes and improvements are still required, AM remains a promising method for fabricating customized porous implants in the future.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Crystals
Published
2026-06-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst16070410
Primary Topic
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

in vitro and in vivo Performance of Implants Using Additive Manufacturing vs. Commercially Available Implants

Yutaka Yanaba, Susan K. Hummel, Azusa Seki, Mari Koike et al.
Crystals
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
article

in vitro and in vivo Performance of Implants Using Additive Manufacturing vs. Commercially Available Implants

Yutaka Yanaba, Susan K. Hummel, Azusa Seki, Mari Koike, Toru Okabe
article en

Abstract

The study objectives were to evaluate the in vitro and in vivo performance of additive manufacturing (AM) Ti6Al4V ELI alloy compared to that of a commercially available dental implant. Two AM shapes with the solid or lattice structures on the solid substrate were used: in vitro test: disk shapes (10.0 mm/dia. 2.0 mm/thick) and in vivo test: AM shapes matching the overall geometry of a commercial implant (3.0 mm/dia. 8.0 mm/length). Six disk specimens were placed in direct contact with Balb/c 3T3 fibroblasts for 72 h. Cytotoxicity was assessed with adenosine triphosphate activity. Four implant-shaped specimens were placed in the femurs of three rabbits and retrieved after 6 weeks. Osseointegration was evaluated by push-out testing and histological analysis. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Surface roughness (µm) of AM-solid, AM-lattice, and a commercial implant were 8.02, 9.00, and 1.46, respectively. Cytotoxicity was not statistically different compared to surface configuration and Teflon® controls (p > 0.05). Push-out test results were not significant between implants: the shear stiffness of commercial > AM-lattice > AM-solid (p > 0.05). Histological analysis demonstrated osseointegration without inflammatory responses in the surrounding bone tissue for all implants. While some processes and improvements are still required, AM remains a promising method for fabricating customized porous implants in the future.

CrystalsVol. 16(7)
Imperial Household Agency (JP), American Board of Internal Medicine (US), Fukushima Medical University (JP), Baylor University (US), Nippon Dental University (JP), Nippon Dental University Hospital (JP), The University of Tokyo (JP)
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.