Demonstrates superior mechanical properties in bone scaffolds, suggesting enhanced implant performance.
In this work, co-extrusion Direct Ink Writing 3D printing technology was used to produce 316L-sphene (CaTiSiO 5 ) core-shell scaffolds, with the main objective of developing a new generation of bone substitutes capable of mimicking the mechanical behavior of natural bone under compressive load. The presence of a ductile core in the struts of bioceramics scaffolds increases the strain energy density, preventing brittle fracture and enabling a more graceful failure. The proposed CO₂-free synthesis route for sphene, without decomposition byproducts, preserves the intrinsic ductility of the stainless-steel core while maintaining a level of porosity suitable for promoting the bioactive properties of the bioceramic shell. Compression tests on the 3D-printed bio-scaffolds demonstrated that the incorporation of a ductile metallic core alters the fracture behavior under compressive loading, resulting in a fourfold increase in strain energy density compared with fully ceramic scaffolds, while preserving a high porosity (~70%). The in-vitro studies confirmed the bioactive behavior of both sphene and 316L–sphene scaffolds, as evidenced by the formation of calcium phosphate phases and apatite-like precipitates after immersion in SBF. ICP-MS analyses revealed very low metal ion release (Fe < 0.3 ppm; Ti < 20 ppb; Cr < 10 ppb; Ni < 5 ppb; Mn < 100 ppb). Cytotoxicity tests showed cell viability consistently above the 70% threshold defined by ISO 10993-5, confirming the absence of cytotoxic effects. These results represent a first step toward the development of a new generation of composite bio-scaffolds, in which the combination of materials with both structural and functional properties may enable the fabrication of patient-specific implants. Further studies will require the optimization of the core-shell interface strength, the study of their mechanical behavior under dynamic loading conditions, and the assessment of the effect of scaffold architecture on their bioactive response.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gastaldi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: