ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2026
Three-Dimensional Printing of a Spinal Interbody: Design Principles, Biomaterials, and Translational Considerations.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Outcomes of 3D-printed titanium cages for surgical reconstruction in infectious spondylodiscitis: a systematic review.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterbody spinal fusion is a common surgical treatment for degenerative, traumatic, and deformity-related spinal pathologies. Despite advances in cage geometry and fixation strategies that improve alignment and early stability, reliable fusion remains limited by the mechanical and biological constraints of conventional interbody implant materials. Traditional titanium and polymer-based cages often fail to optimally balance load sharing, osteointegration, and biological activity within the mechanically demanding interbody environment. This narrative review examines the development and translational potential of 3D-printed interbody fusion devices, with emphasis on how additive manufacturing enables the integration of mechanical performance with biologically active scaffold design.
methodsA thorough literature review was performed to evaluate the evolution, design principles, material properties, and translational outcomes of three-dimensional (3D)-printed interbody fusion devices.
resultsAdditive manufacturing enables precise control over implant architecture, allowing for the fabrication of porous, lattice-based cages with tunable stiffness, optimized load sharing, and enhanced bone-implant integration. Preclinical and early clinical studies suggest that 3D-printed porous titanium cages may reduce subsidence, promote osteointegration, and improve fusion-related outcomes compared with conventional designs. Emerging evidence indicates that scaffold porosity, surface microtopography, and bioactive coatings influence macrophage polarization, angiogenesis, and osteogenic signaling. Polymeric and composite constructs, particularly hybrid designs incorporating surface functionalization, represent promising adjuncts, though clinical evidence remains limited.
conclusionsThree-dimensional printing represents a paradigm shift in interbody fusion device design. Continued translational research and longer-term clinical follow-up are required to validate efficacy and guide widespread clinical adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.