Annals of 3D Printed Medicine (Nov 2023)

Feasibility of additively manufacturing synthetic bone for sports personal protective equipment applications

  • Gemma Leslie,
  • Keith Winwood,
  • Andy Sanderson,
  • Peter Zioupos,
  • Tom Allen

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12
p. 100121

Abstract

Read online

Human limb surrogates, of varying biofidelity, are used in the performance assessment of sports personal protective equipment (PPE). Such biofidelic surrogates have incorporated soft tissue simulants (silicones) and synthetic bone (short fibre filled epoxy). Testing surrogates incorporating realistic synthetic bone could help to further our knowledge of fracture trauma mechanics, and applications such as the effectiveness of sports PPE. Limb surrogates with embedded synthetic bone are rarely tested to fracture, mainly due to the effort and cost of replacing them. This paper proposes additive manufacturing of synthetic bones, with appropriate bone like fracture characteristics, potentially making them more accessible and cost effective. A Markforged® X7™ printer was used as it prints a base filament (Onyx™) alongside a continuous strand of reinforcement (e.g., carbon fibre). The properties of specimens from this printer vary with the type, volume fraction and position of reinforcement. Bar specimens (10 × 4 × 120 mm) with varying amounts of carbon fibre reinforcement were printed for three-point bend testing to determine the feasibility of achieving mechanical properties close to compact bone (bending modulus of ∼15 GPa, bending strength of ∼180 MPa). Bending strength for the various bar specimens ranged from 32 to 378 MPa, and modulus values ranged from 1.5 to 25.8 GPa. Based on these results, four 140 mm long oval shaped cylindrical specimens of ø14 and ø16 mm were printed to represent a basic radius bone model. Three-point bend testing of these bone models showed similar bending modulus (3.8 to 5.3 GPa vs. 3.66 to 14.8 GPa) to radius bones reported in the literature, but higher bending strength (147 to 200 MPa vs. 80.31 ± 14.55 MPa).

Keywords