Submit to BMT
Cite this article
3
Download
57
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Osseointegration and bone ingrowth performance of three-dimensionally printed trabecular porous tantalum scaffolds: A pre-clinical large animal study

Youlin Chen1,2 ,  Zaiyi Yang3 ,  Hao Cheng1*
Show Less
1 Department of Orthopedics, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
2 Zhejiang University–University of Edinburgh Institute, Zhejiang University, Jiaxing, Zhejiang, China
3 Miss Porter’s School, Farmington, Connecticut, United States of America
BMT, 79 https://doi.org/10.12336/bmt.25.00079
Submitted: 30 June 2025 | Revised: 19 November 2025 | Accepted: 27 February 2026 | Published: 20 May 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). Licensee Biomaterials Translational, USA. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en)
Download PDF
Cite
XML
Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D)-printed trabecular porous tantalum (Ta) is emerging as a promising biomaterial for personalized treatment strategies for large-scale, load-bearing bone defect repair. It offers favorable mechanical and biological properties, but its in vivo osseointegration and bone ingrowth remain incompletely characterized. This study investigates the in vivo performance of trabecular porous Ta scaffolds fabricated through selective laser melting (SLM) in a large animal (goat) model. A comprehensive analysis was conducted through scanning electron microscopy, histological staining, bone ingrowth rate (BIR) evaluation, and push-out testing. The results demonstrated that the 3D-printed Ta scaffold exhibited favorable in vivo biocompatibility and mechanical stability, with sustained promotion of new bone formation and integration, comparable to a clinically used Ta scaffold fabricated using chemical vapor deposition (CVD). At 6 months, the BIRs were 47.5% in the SLM group and 40.0% in the CVD group. The ingrowth rate was notably higher in the SLM group, indicating superior long-term osseointegration. Push-out testing indicated improved interfacial bonding strength in the SLM group during both early and late stages. Notably, the 3D-printed sample exhibited greater early bone-integration strength. With outstanding bone affinity, the sample integrated with new bone without fibrous tissue growth between the scaffold and the bone. This study validates the clinical potential of 3D-printed porous Ta for the personalized reconstruction of massively defective load-bearing bone tissues, offering a promising approach to individualized orthopedic solutions.

Keywords
Bone ingrowth
Chemical vapor deposition
Osteogenesis
Porous tantalum
Selective laser melting
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
References
[1]
  1. Sun S, Zhang H, Wang Q, Zhu D, Wen Y. Establishment of a novel experimental animal model for the treatment of tibial segmental bone defects in juvenile sheep. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):8232. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-93172-5
  2. Giannoudis PV, Einhorn TA, Marsh D. Fracture healing: The diamond concept. Injury. 2007;38:S3-S6. doi: 10.1016/s0020-1383(08)70003-2
  3. Ekegren CL, Edwards ER, De Steiger R, Gabbe BJ. Incidence, costs and predictors of non-union, delayed union and mal-union following long bone fracture. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12):2845. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15122845
  4. Oryan A, Alidadi S, Moshiri A, Maffulli N. Bone regenerative medicine: Classic options, novel strategies, and future directions. J Orthop Surg Res. 2014;9(1):18. doi: 10.1186/1749-799x-9-18
  5. De Pace R, Molinari S, Mazzoni E, Perale G. Bone regeneration: A review of current treatment strategies. JCM. 2025;14(6):1838. doi: 10.3390/jcm14061838
  6. Davoodi E, Montazerian H, Esmaeilizadeh R, et al. Additively manufactured gradient porous Ti–6Al–4V Hip replacement implants embedded with cell-laden gelatin methacryloyl hydrogels. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2021;13(19):22110-22123. doi: 10.1021/acsami.0c20751
  7. Marew T, Birhanu G. Three dimensional printed nanostructure biomaterials for bone tissue engineering. Regenerative Therapy. 2021;18:102-111. doi: 10.1016/j.reth.2021.05.001
  8. Shi Q, Chang X, Qin F, Tan C, Xie H, Liu X. A comprehensive review of additive manufacturing of tantalum and its alloys: Materials, processing and properties. J Mater Res Technol. 2026;41:2408-2427. doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2026.01.181
  9. Liang Y, Han J, Wang Z, Chen D, Bai Z, Wang C. Porosity optimization confers 3D-printed porous tantalum scaffolds with superior osteogenic capability and biocompatibility over titanium alloys. J Orthop Surg Res. 2025;21(1):107. doi: 10.1186/s13018-025-06577-3
  10. Gao H, Yang J, Jin X, et al. Porous tantalum scaffolds: Fabrication, structure, properties, and orthopedic applications. Mater Design. 2021;210:110095. doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2021.110095
  11. Levine BR, Sporer S, Poggie RA, Della Valle CJ, Jacobs JJ. Experimental and clinical performance of porous tantalum in orthopedic surgery. Biomaterials. 2006;27(27):4671-4681. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.04.041
  12. Kayani B, Howard LC, Neufeld ME, Greidanus NV, Masri BA, Garbuz DS. Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe femoral and tibial bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty are reliable for fixation at mean 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2024;39(9):S374-S379. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2024.03.022
  13. Nakasone C, Weber I, Israelite C, Cholewa J. Early radiographic evaluation of an anatomic porous tantalum tibia: A prospective, multi-center, non-randomized clinical study. Knee. 2025;53:264-272. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2025.01.010
  14. Ferraro M, Puglia F, Della Valle A, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with a tantalum cage: Lumbar lordosis redistribution and sacral slope restoration with a modified posterior technique. J Orthop Traumatol. 2023;24(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s10195-023-00741-3
  15. Wang X, Zhou K, Li Y, Xie H, Wang B. Preparation, modification, and clinical application of porous tantalum scaffolds. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023;11:1127939. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1127939
  16. Gao H, Jin X, Yang J, et al. Porous structure and compressive failure mechanism of additively manufactured cubic-lattice tantalum scaffolds. Mater Today Adv. 2021;12:100183. doi: 10.1016/j.mtadv.2021.100183
  17. Chen W, Yang J, Kong H, et al. Fatigue behaviour and biocompatibility of additively manufactured bioactive tantalum graded lattice structures for load-bearing orthopaedic applications. Mater Sci Eng C. 2021;130:112461. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2021.112461
  18. Yang J, Gao H, Zhang D, et al. Static compressive behavior and material failure mechanism of trabecular tantalum scaffolds fabricated by laser powder bed fusion-based additive manufacturing. Int J Bioprint. 2021;8(1):438. doi: 10.18063/ijb.v8i1.438
  19. Ni X, Sun Q, Wang J, et al. Development and characterization of minimal surface tantalum scaffold with high strength and superior fatigue resistance. J Mater Res Technol. 2025;36:1226-1239. doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2025.03.108
  20. Wang J, Ni X, Sun Q, et al. Additively manufactured trabecular porous tantalum: Effects of annealing temperature and oxygen content on mechanical properties. J Mater Res Technol. 2025;35:4055-4070. doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2025.02.030
  21. Jiao J, Hong Q, Zhang D, et al. Influence of porosity on osteogenesis, bone growth and osteointegration in trabecular tantalum scaffolds fabricated by additive manufacturing. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023;11:1117954. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1117954
  22. Wang X, Zhang D, Peng H, Yang J, Li Y, Xu J. Optimize the pore size-pore distribution-pore geometry-porosity of 3D-printed porous tantalum to obtain optimal critical bone defect repair capability. Biomater Adv. 2023;154:213638. doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2023.213638
  23. Zhang Y, Yang J, Wan W, et al. Evaluation of biological performance of 3D printed trabecular porous tantalum spine fusion cage in large animal models. J Orthop Transl. 2025;50:185-195. doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2024.10.010
  24. Giannoudis PV, Dinopoulos H, Tsiridis E. Bone substitutes: An update. Injury. 2005;36(3):S20-S27. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2005.07.029
  25. Lei P, Qian H, Zhang T, et al. Porous tantalum structure integrated on Ti6Al4V base by laser powder bed fusion for enhanced bony-ingrowth implants: In vitro and in vivo validation. Bioactive Mater. 2022;7:3-13. doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.05.025
  26. Yang J, Jin X, Gao H, et al. Additive manufacturing of trabecular tantalum scaffolds by laser powder bed fusion: Mechanical property evaluation and porous structure characterization. Mater Characterization. 2020;170:110694. doi: 10.1016/j.matchar.2020.110694
  27. Lu M, Xu S, Lei ZX, et al. Application of a novel porous tantalum implant in rabbit anterior lumbar spine fusion model: In vitro and in vivo experiments. Chin Med J. 2019;132(1):51-62. doi: 10.1097/cm9.0000000000000030
  28. Huang G, Pan ST, Qiu JX. The clinical application of porous tantalum and its new development for bone tissue engineering. Materials (Basel). 2021;14(10):2647. doi: 10.3390/ma14102647
  29. Zhu J, Li W, Cai H, et al. Fabrication and mechanical properties of porous tantalum carbon composites by chemical vapor deposition. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):6280-6295. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-86680-x
  30. Deng F, Liu L, Li Z, Liu J. 3D printed Ti6Al4V bone scaffolds with different pore structure effects on bone ingrowth. J Biol Eng. 2021;15(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s13036-021-00255-8
  31. Li J, Cheng L, Yang J, et al. Study on the performance of selected laser melting porous Ta scaffolds with different porosities used as orthopedics implant biomaterial. J Mater Res Technol. 2025;36:9320-9332. doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2025.05.195
  32. Guo Y, Xie K, Jiang W, et al. In vitro and in vivo study of 3D-printed porous tantalum scaffolds for repairing bone defects. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2018;5(2):1123-1133. doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.8b01094
  33. Mukasheva F, Adilova L, Dyussenbinov A, Yernaimanova B, Abilev M, Akilbekova D. Optimizing scaffold pore size for tissue engineering: Insights across various tissue types. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024;12:1444986. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1444986
  34. Gatto ML, Furlani M, Giuliani A, et al. Combined effects of HA concentration and unit cell geometry on the biomechanical behavior of PCL/HA scaffold for tissue engineering applications produced by LPBF. Materials (Basel). 2023;16(14):4950. doi: 10.3390/ma16144950
  35. Chen H, Han Q, Wang C, Liu Y, Chen B, Wang J. Porous scaffold design for additive manufacturing in orthopedics: A review. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;8:609. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00609
  36. Wang Z, Zhang M, Liu Z, et al. Biomimetic design strategy of complex porous structure based on 3D printing Ti-6Al-4V scaffolds for enhanced osseointegration. Mater Design. 2022;218:110721. doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110721
  37. Gittens RA, Olivares-Navarrete R, Schwartz Z, Boyan BD. Implant osseointegration and the role of microroughness and nanostructures: Lessons for spine implants. Acta Biomater. 2014;10(8):3363-3371. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.03.037
  38. Liang H, Yang Y, Xie D, et al. Trabecular-like Ti-6Al-4V scaffolds for orthopedic: Fabrication by selective laser melting and in vitro biocompatibility. J Mater Sci Technol. 2019;35(7):1284-1297. doi: 10.1016/j.jmst.2019.01.012
  39. Meng M, Wang J, Huang H, Liu X, Zhang J, Li Z. 3D printing metal implants in orthopedic surgery: Methods, applications and future prospects. J Orthop Transl. 2023;42:94-112. doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2023.08.004
  40. Yuan L, Ding S, Wen C. Additive manufacturing technology for porous metal implant applications and triple minimal surface structures: A review. Bioactive Mater. 2019;4:56-70. doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2018.12.003
  41. Kelly CN, Wang T, Crowley J, et al. High-strength, porous additively manufactured implants with optimized mechanical osseointegration. Biomaterials. 2021;279:121206. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2021.121206
  42. Lu T, Wen J, Qian S, et al. Enhanced osteointegration on tantalum-implanted polyetheretherketone surface with bone-like elastic modulus. Biomaterials. 2015;51:173-183. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.02.018
  43. Wysocki B, Idaszek J, Zdunek J, et al. The influence of selective laser melting (SLM) process parameters on in-vitro cell response. Int J Med Sci. 2018;19(6):1619. doi: 10.3390/ijms19061619
  44. Balla VK, Bodhak S, Bose S, Bandyopadhyay A. Porous tantalum structures for bone implants: Fabrication, mechanical and in vitro biological properties. Acta Biomater. 2010;6(8):3349-3359. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2010.01.046
  45. Frosch S, Buchhorn GH. Considerations on the animal model and the biomechanical test arrangements for assessing the osseous integration of orthopedic and dental implants. MethodsX. 2021;8:101352. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2021.101352
  46. Pearce A, Richards R, Milz S, Schneider E, Pearce S. Animal models for implant biomaterial research in bone: A review. Eur Cell Mater. 2007;13:1-10. doi: 10.22203/ecm.v013a01
  47. Fan H, Deng S, Tang W, et al. Highly porous 3D printed tantalum scaffolds have better biomechanical and microstructural properties than titanium scaffolds. BioMed Res Int. 2021;2021(1):2899043. doi: 10.1155/2021/2899043
  48. Gittens RA, Olivares-Navarrete R, Schwartz Z, Boyan BD. Implant osseointegration and the role of microroughness and nanostructures: Lessons for spine implants. Acta Biomater. 2014;10(8):3363-3371. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.03.037
  49. Wei J, Chen X, Xu Y, et al. Significance and considerations of establishing standardized critical values for critical size defects in animal models of bone tissue regeneration. Heliyon. 2024;10(13):e33768. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33768
  50. Maai N, Meuris A, Reinert N, et al. Animal models for critical-sized long-bone defects and long-bone non-union: A scoping review. J Orthop Surg Res. 2026;21(1):226. doi: 10.1186/s13018-026-06697-4
  51. Sparks DS, Saifzadeh S, Savi FM, et al. A preclinical large-animal model for the assessment of critical-size load-bearing bone defect reconstruction. Nat Protoc. 2020;15(3):877-924. doi: 10.1038/s41596-019-0271-2
  52. Lindtner R, Kampik L, Putzer D, et al. Advancements in high-resolution computed tomography: Revolutionising bone health micro-research. Bioengineering (Basel). 2025;12(11):1189. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering12111189
  53. Li Z, Zhang Q, Yang S, et al. An optimized method for microcomputed tomography analysis of trabecular parameters of metal scaffolds for bone ingrowth. Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2023;29(6):276-283. doi: 10.1089/ten.tec.2023.0076
Share
Back to top
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept