Orthopaedic implant technology has undergone a paradigm shift with the advent of additive manufacturing (AM), a transformative approach that enables the design and fabrication of complex, patient-specific medical devices with enhanced functionality. Traditional manufacturing methods often face limitations in producing customized geometries and tailored material properties essential for optimal biological integration and mechanical performance. In response, AM has emerged as a powerful solution, offering unprecedented control over structural design, material distribution, and internal porosity. This review explores recent developments in the additive manufacturing of orthopaedic implants, with a particular focus on titanium-based alloys, bioresorbable metals, porous scaffold structures, implant-tissue integration, and clinical implementation. A systematic analysis of literature published between 2020 and 2025—sourced from Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science—reveals that Ti-6Al-4V remains the most extensively studied alloy due to its exceptional biocompatibility and mechanical robustness. Bioresorbable metals such as magnesium and zinc alloys are also showing promise for temporary implants, particularly in pediatric and trauma applications, where gradual degradation eliminates the need for implant removal. Advanced AM techniques like Selective Laser Melting (SLM) and Electron Beam Melting (EBM) are enabling the fabrication of porous structures that significantly improve osseointegration and promote bone tissue regeneration. Clinical case studies in hip, knee, and spinal implant applications further underscore the positive impact of AM in improving surgical outcomes and patient recovery. Nevertheless, the widespread clinical adoption of AM technologies will depend on further in vivo research, long-term performance data, and the development of regulatory frameworks to ensure safety, reliability, and standardization.
Fakoya et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: