Intervertebral cages made of Ti6Al4V alloy show excellent osteoconductivity, but also higher stiffness, compared to commonly used polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) materials, that may lead to a stress-shielding effect and implant subsidence. In this study, a metallic intervertebral fusion cage, with improved mechanical behavior, was manufactured by the introduction of a three-dimensional (3D) mesh structure to Ti6Al4V material, using an additive manufacturing method. Then, the mechanical and biological properties of the following were compared: (1) PEEK, with a solid structure, (2) 3D-printed Ti6Al4V, with a solid structure, and (3) 3D-printed Ti6Al4V, with a mesh structure. A load-induced subsidence test demonstrated that the 3D-printed mesh Ti6Al4V cage had significantly lower tendency (by 15%) to subside compared to the PEEK implant. Biological assessment of the samples proved that all tested materials were biocompatible. However, both titanium samples (solid and mesh) were characterized by significantly higher bioactivity, osteoconductivity, and mineralization ability, compared to PEEK. Moreover, osteoblasts revealed stronger adhesion to the surface of the Ti6Al4V samples compared to PEEK material. Thus, it was clearly shown that the 3D-printed mesh Ti6Al4V cage possesses all the features for optimal spinal implant, since it carries low risk of implant subsidence and provides good osseointegration at the bone-implant interface.

The main aim of this study was to perform a complex biomechanical analysis for a custom-designed temporomandibular joint (TMJ) prosthesis in combination with a fibular free flap in a pediatric case. Numerical simulations in seven variants of loads were carried out on 3D models obtained based on CT images of a 15-year-old patient in whom it was necessary to reconstruct the temporal-mandibular joints with the use of a fibula autograft. The implant model was designed based on the patient’s geometry. Experimental tests on a manufactured personalized implant were carried out on the MTS Insight testing machine. Two methods of fixing the implant to the bone were analyzed—using three or five bone screws. The greatest stress was located on the top of the head of the prosthesis. The stress on the prosthesis with the five-screw configuration was lower than in the prosthesis with the three-screw configuration. The peak load analysis shows that the samples with the five-screw configuration have a lower deviation (10.88, 0.97, and 32.80%) than the groups with the three-screw configuration (57.89 and 41.10%). However, in the group with the five-screw configuration, the fixation stiffness was relatively lower (a higher value of peak load by displacement of 171.78 and 86.46 N/mm) than in the group with the three-screw configuration (where the peak load by displacement was 52.93, 60.06, and 78.92 N/mm). Based on the experimental and numerical studies performed, it could be stated that the screw configuration is crucial for biomechanical analysis. The results obtained may be an indication for surgeons, especially during planning personalized reconstruction procedures.