Next-generation craniomaxillofacial implants for reconstructive surgery: balancing biomechanics, biocompatibility, and bioactivity

Abstract

Next-generation craniomaxillofacial implants (CMFIs) are redefining personalized bone reconstruction by balancing and optimizing biomechanics, biocompatibility, and bioactivity—the “3Bs”. This review highlights recent progress in implant design, material development, additive manufacturing, and preclinical evaluation. Emerging biomaterials, including bioresorbable polymers, magnesium alloys, and composites with bioactive ceramics, enable patient-specific solutions with improved safety and functionality. Triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) architectures exemplify how structural design can enhance both mechanical performance and biological integration. Additive manufacturing technologies further allow the fabrication of geometrically complex, customized implants that meet individual anatomical and pathological needs. In parallel, multiscale evaluation techniques—from mechanical testing to in vitro and in vivo models—provide comprehensive insights into implant performance and safety. Looking ahead, the field is poised to benefit from several transformative trends: the development of smart and multifunctional biomaterials; AI-driven design frameworks that leverage patient-specific data and computational modeling; predictive additive manufacturing with real-time quality control; and advanced biological testing platforms for preclinical evaluation. Together, these advances form the foundation of a data-informed, translational pipeline from bench to bedside. Realizing the full potential of next-generation CMFIs will require close interdisciplinary collaboration across materials science, computational engineering, and clinical medicine.

References

[1] Jaiswal R, Pu LLQ. Reconstruction after complex facial trauma: Achieving optimal outcome through multiple contemporary surgeries. Ann. Plast. Surg., 2013, 70: 406-409

[2] Crist TE, Mathew PJ, Plotsker EL, Sevilla AC, Thaller SR. Biomaterials in craniomaxillofacial reconstruction: Past, present, and future. J. Craniofacial Surg., 2021, 32: 535-540

[3] Chen W, et al.. Craniofacial resection and reconstruction in patients with recurrent cancer involving the craniomaxillofacial region. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg., 2017, 75: 622-631

[4] Posch NAS, Mureau MAM, Dumans AG, Hofer SOP. Functional and aesthetic outcome and survival after double free flap reconstruction in advanced head and neck cancer patients. Plast. Reconstructive Surg., 2007, 120: 124-129

[5] Hofer S, Payne C. Functional and aesthetic outcome enhancement of head and neck reconstruction through secondary procedures. Semin. Plast. Surg., 2010, 24: 309-318

[6] Wang W, Yeung KWK. Bone grafts and biomaterials substitutes for bone defect repair: A review. Bioact. Mater., 2017, 2: 224-247

[7] LaPrade RF, Botker JC. Donor-site morbidity after osteochondral autograft transfer procedures. Arthrosc.: J. Arthroscopic Relat. Surg., 2004, 20: e69-e73

[8] Graham SM, et al.. Biological therapy of bone defects: the immunology of bone allo-transplantation. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther., 2010, 10: 885-901

[9] Boneva RS, Folks TM, Chapman LE. Infectious Disease Issues in Xenotransplantation. Clin. Microbiol Rev., 2001, 14: 1-14

[10] Thayaparan, G. K., Lewis, P. M., Thompson, R. G. & D’Urso, P. S. Patient-specific implants for craniomaxillofacial surgery: A manufacturer’s experience. Ann. Med. Surg.66, 102420 (2021).

[11] Dewey MJ, Harley BAC. Biomaterial design strategies to address obstacles in craniomaxillofacial bone repair. RSC Adv., 2021, 11: 17809-17827

[12] Gupta S, Gupta H, Tandan A. Technical complications of implant-causes and management: A comprehensive review. Natl. J. Maxillofac. Surg., 2015, 6: 3

[13] Tabrizian P, Davis S, Su B. From bone to nacre – development of biomimetic materials for bone implants: a review. Biomater. Sci., 2024, 12: 5680-5703

[14] Selim M, Mousa HM, Abdel-Jaber GT, Barhoum A, Abdal-hay A. Innovative designs of 3D scaffolds for bone tissue regeneration: Understanding principles and addressing challenges. Eur. Polym. J., 2024, 215: 113251

[15] Koppunur R, et al.. Design and fabrication of patient-specific implant for maxillofacial surgery using additive manufacturing. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng., 2022, 2022: 1-7

[16] Shaikh M, et al.. Revolutionising orthopaedic implants—a comprehensive review on metal 3D printing with materials, design strategies, manufacturing technologies, and post-process machining advancements. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 2024, 134: 1043-1076

[17] Hériveaux Y, et al.. Mechanical micromodeling of stress-shielding at the bone-implant interphase under shear loading. Med Biol. Eng. Comput, 2022, 60: 3281-3293

[18] Naujokat, H. et al. In vivo biocompatibility evaluation of 3D-printed nickel–titanium fabricated by selective laser melting. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 33, 13 (2022).

[19] Al Maruf, D. S. A. et al. Evaluation of osseointegration of plasma treated polyaryletherketone maxillofacial implants. Sci. Rep.15, 1895 (2025).

[20] Figueroa-Sanchez JA, et al.. Partial cranial reconstruction using titanium mesh after craniectomy: An antiadhesive and protective barrier with improved aesthetic outcomes. World Neurosurg., 2024, 185: 207-215

[21] Wong RCW, Tideman H, Merkx MAW, Jansen J, Goh SM. The modular endoprosthesis for mandibular body replacement. Part 1: Mechanical testing of the reconstruction. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg., 2012, 40: e479-e486

[22] Pakdel AR, Whyne CM, Fialkov JA. Structural biomechanics of the craniomaxillofacial skeleton under maximal masticatory loading: Inferences and critical analysis based on a validated computational model. J. Plast., Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg., 2017, 70: 842-850

[23] Lang JJ, et al.. Improving mandibular reconstruction by using topology optimization, patient specific design and additive manufacturing?—A biomechanical comparison against miniplates on human specimen. PLoS ONE, 2021, 16: e0253002

[24] Rosa V, et al.. Guidance on the assessment of biocompatibility of biomaterials: Fundamentals and testing considerations. Dent. Mater., 2024, 40: 1773-1785

[25] Huzum B, et al.. Biocompatibility assessment of biomaterials used in orthopedic devices: An overview (Review). Exp. Ther. Med., 2021, 22: 1315

[26] Pappalardo D, Mathisen T, Finne-Wistrand A. Biocompatibility of resorbable polymers: A historical perspective and framework for the future. Biomacromolecules, 2019, 20: 1465-1477

[27] Szwed-Georgiou A, et al.. Bioactive materials for bone regeneration: Biomolecules and delivery systems. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng., 2023, 9: 5222-5254

[28] Zhao B, et al.. Promoting osteoblast proliferation on polymer bone substitutes with bone-like structure by combining hydroxyapatite and bioactive glass. Mater. Sci. Eng.: C., 2019, 96: 1-9

[29] Lim, H.-K., Choi, Y.-J., Choi, W.-C., Song, I.-S. & Lee, U.-L. Reconstruction of maxillofacial bone defects using patient-specific long-lasting titanium implants. Sci. Rep. 12, 7538 (2022).

[30] Shaikh MQ, et al.. Investigation of patient-specific maxillofacial implant prototype development by metal fused filament fabrication (MF3) of Ti-6Al-4V. Dent. J., 2021, 9: 109

[31] Brogini, S. et al. In vivo validation of highly customized cranial Ti-6AL-4V ELI prostheses fabricated through incremental forming and superplastic forming: an ovine model study. Sci. Rep.14, 7959 (2024).

[32] Hijazi KM, Dixon SJ, Armstrong JE, Rizkalla AS. Titanium alloy implants with lattice structures for mandibular reconstruction. Materials, 2023, 17: 140

[33] Bittredge O, et al.. Fabrication and optimisation of Ti-6Al-4V lattice-structured total shoulder implants using laser additive manufacturing. Materials, 2022, 15: 3095

[34] Villapun Puzas VM, et al.. Surface free energy dominates the biological interactions of postprocessed additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng., 2022, 8: 4311-4326

[35] Park J-H, et al.. 3D-printed titanium implant with pre-mounted dental implants for mandible reconstruction: a case report. Maxillofac. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 2020, 42: 28

[36] Ardila C-M, Hernández-Arenas Y, Álvarez-Martínez E. Mandibular body reconstruction utilizing a three-dimensional custom-made porous titanium plate: A four-year follow-up clinical report. Case Rep. Dent., 2022, 2022: 5702066

[37] Liu R, et al.. Novel design and optimization of porous titanium structure for mandibular reconstruction. Appl. Bionics Biomech., 2022, 2022: 1-13

[38] Li H, Hao J, Liu X. Research progress and perspective of metallic implant biomaterials for craniomaxillofacial surgeries. Biomater. Sci., 2024, 12: 252-269

[39] Xue R, et al.. Finite element analysis and clinical application of 3D-printed Ti alloy implant for the reconstruction of mandibular defects. BMC Oral. Health, 2024, 24 95

[40] Sunderland IR, Edwards G, Mainprize J, Antonyshyn O. A technique for intraoperative creation of patient-specific titanium mesh implants. Plast. Surg., 2015, 23: 95-99

[41] Gareb B, Van Bakelen NB, Vissink A, Bos RRM, Van Minnen B. Titanium or biodegradable osteosynthesis in maxillofacial surgery? in vitro and in vivo performances. Polymers, 2022, 14: 2782

[42] Vujović S, et al.. Applications of biodegradable magnesium-based materials in reconstructive oral and maxillofacial surgery: A review. Molecules, 2022, 27: 5529

[43] Prasadh S, et al.. The potential of magnesium based materials in mandibular reconstruction. Metals, 2019, 9: 302

[44] Gugliotta Y, Zavattero E, Ramieri G, Borbon C, Gerbino G. Cranio-Maxillo-facial reconstruction with polyetheretherketone patient-specific implants: Aesthetic and functional outcomes. JPM, 2024, 14: 849

[45] Anderson B, et al.. Comparison of perioperative and long-term outcomes following PEEK and autologous cranioplasty: A single institution experience and review of the literature. World Neurosurg., 2023, 180: e127-e134

[46] Kauke-Navarro M, Knoedler L, Knoedler S, Deniz C, Safi A-F. Surface modification of PEEK implants for craniofacial reconstruction and aesthetic augmentation—fiction or reality?. Front. Surg., 2024, 11: 1351749

[47] Cárdenas-Serres C, et al.. Custom CAD/CAM peek implants for complex orbitocranial reconstruction: Our experience with 15 patients. JCM, 2024, 13: 695

[48] Punchak M, et al.. Outcomes following polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cranioplasty: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Neurosci., 2017, 41: 30-35

[49] Verma S, Sharma N, Kango S, Sharma S. Developments of PEEK (Polyetheretherketone) as a biomedical material: A focused review. Eur. Polym. J., 2021, 147: 110295

[50] Bello-Rojas G, Whitney M, Rontal M, Jackson IT. Long-term results of craniofacial implantation: a return to methyl methacrylate. Eur. J. Plast. Surg., 2012, 35: 177-180

[51] Msallem B, et al.. Biomechanical evaluation of patient-specific polymethylmethacrylate cranial implants for virtual surgical planning: An in-vitro study. Materials, 2022, 15: 1970

[52] Huang GJ, et al.. Craniofacial reconstruction with poly(methyl methacrylate) customized cranial implants. J. Craniofacial Surg., 2015, 26: 64-70

[53] Prasadh S, Wong RCW. Unraveling the mechanical strength of biomaterials used as a bone scaffold in oral and maxillofacial defects. Oral. Sci. Int., 2018, 15: 48-55

[54] Dwivedi R, et al.. Polycaprolactone as biomaterial for bone scaffolds: Review of literature. J. Oral. Biol. Craniofacial Res., 2020, 10: 381-388

[55] Martini L, et al.. Long-term results following cranial hydroxyapatite prosthesis implantation in a large skull defect model. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 2012, 129: 625e-635e

[56] De Carvalho ABG, et al.. Personalized bioceramic grafts for craniomaxillofacial bone regeneration. Int J. Oral. Sci., 2024, 16: 62

[57] Elemosho A, Kluemper JC, Pfahl E, Mitchell K-AS. Outcomes of hydroxyapatite bone cement for craniofacial reconstruction in 1983 patients. J. Craniofacial Surg., 2025, 36: 115-118

[58] Systermans S, et al.. An innovative 3D hydroxyapatite patient-specific implant for maxillofacial bone reconstruction: A case series of 13 patients. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg., 2024, 52: 420-431

[59] Shen C, et al.. Transforming the degradation rate of β-tricalcium phosphate bone replacement using 3-dimensional printing. Ann. Plast. Surg., 2021, 87: e153-e162

[60] Houmard M, Fu Q, Genet M, Saiz E, Tomsia AP. On the structural, mechanical, and biodegradation properties of HA/β-TCP robocast scaffolds: Bone-substitute material in various tissue-engineering applications. J. Biomed. Mater. Res, 2013, 101: 1233-1242

[61] Chen QZ, Thompson ID, Boccaccini AR. 45S5 Bioglass®-derived glass–ceramic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 2006, 27: 2414-2425

[62] Kaur G, et al.. Mechanical properties of bioactive glasses, ceramics, glass-ceramics and composites: State-of-the-art review and future challenges. Mater. Sci. Eng.: C., 2019, 104: 109895

[63] Shekhawat D, Singh A, Banerjee MK, Singh T, Patnaik A. Bioceramic composites for orthopaedic applications: A comprehensive review of mechanical, biological, and microstructural properties. Ceram. Int., 2021, 47: 3013-3030

[64] Ma R, Guo D. Evaluating the bioactivity of a hydroxyapatite-incorporated polyetheretherketone biocomposite. J. Orthop. Surg. Res, 2019, 14: 32

[65] Zheng J, et al.. Additively-manufactured PEEK/HA porous scaffolds with highly-controllable mechanical properties and excellent biocompatibility. Mater. Sci. Eng.: C., 2021, 128 112333

[66] Osawa S, Hashikawa K, Naruse H, Terashi H. Clinical evaluation of unsintered hydroxyapatite particles/poly L-lactide composite device in craniofacial surgery. J. Craniofacial Surg., 2021, 32: 2148-2151

[67] Ramanathan M, et al.. In vivo evaluation of bone regenerative capacity of the novel nanobiomaterial: β-tricalcium phosphate polylactic acid-co-glycolide (β-TCP/PLLA/PGA) for use in maxillofacial bone defects. Nanomaterials, 2023, 14: 91

[68] Sun H, et al.. Multi-material ceramic hybrid additive manufacturing based on vat photopolymerization and material extrusion compound process. Addit. Manuf., 2025, 97104627

[69] Saikia N. Inorganic-based nanoparticles and biomaterials as biocompatible scaffolds for regenerative medicine and tissue engineering: Current advances and trends of development. Inorganics, 2024, 12: 292

[70] Trzaskowska M, et al.. Biocompatible nanocomposite hydroxyapatite-based granules with increased specific surface area and bioresorbability for bone regenerative medicine applications. Sci. Rep., 2024, 14 28137

[71] Cazan C, Enesca A, Andronic L. Synergic effect of TiO2 filler on the mechanical properties of polymer nanocomposites. Polymers, 2021, 13: 2017

[72] Shereen Farhana P, Francis AP, Gayathri R, Sankaran K, Veeraraghavan VP. Synthesis and characterization of zirconium oxide nanoparticles based on hemidesmus indicus extract: evaluation of biocompatibility and bioactivity for prosthetic implant coatings. J. Adv. Oral. Res., 2024, 15: 100-108

[73] Kim IllYong, Sugino A, Kikuta K, Ohtsuki C, Cho SungBaek. Bioactive composites consisting of PEEK and calcium silicate powders. J. Biomater. Appl, 2009, 24: 105-118

[74] Deng, F., Wu, Liu, X., Guo, & Wei. Nano-TiO2/PEEK bioactive composite as a bone substitute material: in vitro and in vivo studies. IJN 1215 https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S28101 (2012).

[75] Kong F, Nie Z, Liu Z, Hou S, Ji J. Developments of nano-TiO2 incorporated hydroxyapatite/PEEK composite strut for cervical reconstruction and interbody fusion after corpectomy with anterior plate fixation. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B: Biol., 2018, 187: 120-125

[76] Chmielewska A, Dean D. The role of stiffness-matching in avoiding stress shielding-induced bone loss and stress concentration-induced skeletal reconstruction device failure. Acta Biomaterialia, 2024, 173: 51-65

[77] Lin C-L, Wang Y-T, Chang C-M, Wu C-H, Tsai W-H. Design criteria for patient-specific mandibular continuity defect reconstructed implant with lightweight structure using weighted topology optimization and validated with biomechanical fatigue testing. IJB, 2021, 8: 437

[78] Steinbacher DM. Three-dimensional analysis and surgical planning in craniomaxillofacial surgery. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg., 2015, 73: S40-S56

[79] Dérand P, Rännar L-E, Hirsch J-M, Imaging. Virtual planning, design, and production of patient-specific implants and clinical validation in craniomaxillofacial surgery. Craniomaxillofacial Trauma Reconstr., 2012, 5: 137-143

[80] Du R, et al.. A systematic approach for making 3D-printed patient-specific implants for craniomaxillofacial reconstruction. Engineering, 2020, 6: 1291-1301

[81] Qadir M, Li Y, Biesiekierski A, Wen C. Surface characterization and biocompatibility of hydroxyapatite coating on anodized TiO₂ nanotubes via PVD magnetron sputtering. Langmuir, 2021, 37: 4984-4996

[82] Van Bael S, et al.. The effect of pore geometry on the in vitro biological behavior of human periosteum-derived cells seeded on selective laser-melted Ti6Al4V bone scaffolds. Acta Biomater., 2012, 8: 2824-2834

[83] Laubach M, et al.. The concept of scaffold-guided bone regeneration for the treatment of long bone defects: Current clinical application and future perspective. JFB, 2023, 14: 341

[84] Kapfer SC, Hyde ST, Mecke K, Arns CH, Schröder-Turk GE. Minimal surface scaffold designs for tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 2011, 32: 6875-6882

[85] Verma R, et al.. Design and analysis of biomedical scaffolds using TPMS-based porous structures inspired from additive manufacturing. Coatings, 2022, 12: 839

[86] Li L, et al.. The triply periodic minimal surface-based 3D printed engineering scaffold for meniscus function reconstruction. Biomater. Res, 2022, 26 45

[87] Shi J, et al.. A TPMS-based method for modeling porous scaffolds for bionic bone tissue engineering. Sci. Rep., 2018, 8 7395

[88] Gabrieli, Wenger R, Mazza R, Verné M, Baino E, Design F. Stereolithographic 3D printing, and characterization of TPMS scaffolds. Materials, 2024, 17: 654

[89] Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials, 2005, 26: 5474-5491

[90] Hollister SJ. Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering. Nat. Mater., 2005, 4: 518-524

[91] Turco G, et al.. Alginate/hydroxyapatite biocomposite for bone ingrowth: A trabecular structure with high and isotropic connectivity. Biomacromolecules, 2009, 10: 1575-1583

[92] Huang X, et al.. Biomaterial scaffolds in maxillofacial bone tissue engineering: A review of recent advances. Bioact. Mater., 2024, 33: 129-156

[93] Song K, Wang Z, Lan J, Ma S. Porous structure design and mechanical behavior analysis based on TPMS for customized root analogue implant. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 2021, 115: 104222

[94] Araya-Calvo M, Järvenpää A, Rautio T, Morales-Sanchez JE, Guillen-Girón T. Comparative fatigue performance of as-built vs etched Ti64 in TPMS-gyroid and stochastic structures fabricated via PBF-LB for biomedical applications. RPJ, 2024, 30: 217-230

[95] Ran Q, et al.. Osteogenesis of 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V implants with different pore sizes. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 2018, 84: 1-11

[96] Foroughi AH, Razavi MJ. Multi-objective shape optimization of bone scaffolds: Enhancement of mechanical properties and permeability. Acta Biomaterialia, 2022, 146: 317-340

[97] Peng W, et al.. Biomechanical and Mechanostat analysis of a titanium layered porous implant for mandibular reconstruction: The effect of the topology optimization design. Mater. Sci. Eng.: C., 2021, 124: 112056

[98] Hu B, et al.. Multi-objective Bayesian optimization accelerated design of TPMS structures. Int. J. Mech. Sci., 2023, 244 108085

[99] Gu J, et al.. Stress-driven design method for porous maxillofacial prosthesis based on triply periodic minimal surface. Composite Struct., 2025, 355 118863

[100] Shahid MN, Shahid MU, Rasheed S, Irfan M, Obeidi MA. Computational investigation of the fluidic properties of triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) structures in tissue engineering. Designs, 2024, 8: 69

[101] Zhang, J. et al. Machine learning guided prediction of mechanical properties of TPMS structures based on finite element simulation for biomedical titanium. Materials Technology 1–8 https://doi.org/10.1080/10667857.2021.1999558 (2021).

[102] Peel S, Bhatia S, Eggbeer D, Morris DS, Hayhurst C. Evolution of design considerations in complex craniofacial reconstruction using patient-specific implants. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H., 2017, 231: 509-524

[103] Zhang L, Song B, Choi S-K, Shi Y. A topology strategy to reduce stress shielding of additively manufactured porous metallic biomaterials. Int. J. Mech. Sci., 2021, 197: 106331

[104] Moiduddin K, et al.. Structural and mechanical characterization of custom design cranial implant created using additive manufacturing. Electron. J. Biotechnol., 2017, 29: 22-31

[105] Wang Y, Lian Y, Wang Z, Wang C, Fang D. A novel triple periodic minimal surface-like plate lattice and its data-driven optimization method for superior mechanical properties. Appl. Math. Mech. -Engl. Ed., 2024, 45: 217-238

[106] Ji Z, Li D, Xie YM, Zhao Y, Liao W. Design and optimization of TPMS-based heterogeneous metastructure for controllable displacement field. Thin-Walled Struct., 2025, 208: 112784

[107] Kök HI, et al.. Reduction of stress-shielding and fatigue-resistant dental implant design through topology optimization and TPMS lattices. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 2025, 165 106923

[108] Zheng N, Zhai X, Chen F. Topology optimization of self-supporting porous structures based on triply periodic minimal surfaces. Comput.-Aided Des., 2023, 161: 103542

[109] Ziaie B, Velay X, Saleem W. Developing porous hip implants implementing topology optimization based on the bone remodelling model and fatigue failure. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 2025, 163: 106864

[110] Jitkla N, Pinyonitikasem A, Wiwatsuwan P, Pairojboriboon S, Promoppatum P. 3d-printed sacral reconstruction prosthesis from multiscale topology optimization: A comprehensive numerical assessment of mechanical stability. Comput. Biol. Med., 2025, 185: 109562

[111] Zhao M, Li X, Zhang DZ, Zhai W. TPMS-based interpenetrating lattice structures: Design, mechanical properties and multiscale optimization. Int. J. Mech. Sci., 2023, 244: 108092

[112] Luo B, Miu L, Luo Y. Titanium alloys for biomedical applications: a review on additive manufacturing process and surface modification technology. Int J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 2025, 137: 3215-3227

[113] Alwala AM, et al.. Analysis of the effectiveness of 3D printed patient-specific implants for reconstruction of maxillary defect secondary to mucormycosis. J. Maxillofac. Oral. Surg., 2023, 22: 728-733

[114] Rana M, et al.. Primary orbital reconstruction with selective laser melting (SLM) of patient-specific implants (PSIs): An overview of 96 surgically treated patients. JCM, 2022, 11: 3361

[115] Qin Y, et al.. Additive manufacturing of Zn-Mg alloy porous scaffolds with enhanced osseointegration: In vitro and in vivo studies. Acta Biomater., 2022, 145: 403-415

[116] Salehi M, et al.. Achieving biomimetic porosity and strength of bone in magnesium scaffolds through binder jet additive manufacturing. Biomater. Adv., 2025, 166 214059

[117] Kuah KX, et al.. Surface modification with phosphate and hydroxyapatite of porous magnesium scaffolds fabricated by binder jet additive manufacturing. Crystals, 2022, 12: 1850

[118] Singh S, Prakash C, Ramakrishna S. 3D printing of polyether-ether-ketone for biomedical applications. Eur. Polym. J., 2019, 114: 234-248

[119] Kaur JN, Padhi P, Pal S. Biocompatible PVAc- g -PLLA acrylate polymers for DLP 3D printing with tunable mechanical properties. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2024, 16: 62594-62605

[120] Zocca A, Colombo P, Gomes CM, Günster J. Additive manufacturing of ceramics: Issues, potentialities, and opportunities. J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 2015, 98: 1983-2001

[121] Nayak VV, et al.. Three-dimensional printing bioceramic scaffolds using direct-ink-writing for craniomaxillofacial bone regeneration. Tissue Eng. Part C: Methods, 2023, 29: 332-345

[122] Manzoor F, et al.. 3D printed strontium and zinc doped hydroxyapatite loaded PEEK for craniomaxillofacial implants. Polymers, 2022, 14: 1376

[123] Zhao G, et al.. Ti/β-TCP composite porous scaffolds fabricated by direct ink writing. Virtual Phys. Prototyp., 2023, 18 e2192703

[124] Jindal S, Manzoor F, Haslam N, Mancuso E. 3D printed composite materials for craniofacial implants: current concepts, challenges and future directions. Int J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 2021, 112: 635-653

[125] Moura De Souza Soares F, Barbosa DM, Reis Corado HP, De Carvalho Santana AI, Elias CN. Surface morphology, roughness, and corrosion resistance of dental implants produced by additive manufacturing. J. Mater. Res. Technol., 2022, 21: 3844-3855

[126] Liu K, et al.. Morphologies, mechanical and in vitro behaviors of DLP-based 3D printed HA scaffolds with different structural configurations. RSC Adv., 2023, 13: 20830-20838

[127] Wu Y-C, Kuo C-N, Chung Y-C, Ng C-H, Huang JC. Effects of electropolishing on mechanical properties and bio-corrosion of Ti6Al4V fabricated by electron beam melting additive manufacturing. Materials, 2019, 12: 1466

[128] Virinthorn RNVC, Chandrasekaran M, Wang K, Goh KL. Post-process optimization of 3D printed poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) dental implant scaffold for enhanced structure and mechanical properties: effects of sonication duration and power. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med, 2021, 32: 91

[129] Shaikh S, Kedia S, Singh D, Subramanian M, Sinha S. Surface texturing of Ti6Al4V alloy using femtosecond laser for superior antibacterial performance. J. Laser Appl., 2019, 31: 022011

[130] Han X, et al.. An in vitro study of osteoblast response on fused-filament fabrication 3D printed PEEK for dental and cranio-maxillofacial implants. JCM, 2019, 8: 771

[131] Syrlybayev D, Seisekulova A, Talamona D, Perveen A. The Post-processing of additive manufactured polymeric and metallic parts. JMMP, 2022, 6: 116

[132] Pourrahimi S, Hof LA. On the post-processing of complex additive manufactured metallic parts: A review. Adv. Eng. Mater., 2024, 26: 2301511

[133] Diniță A, et al.. Additive manufacturing post-processing treatments, a review with emphasis on mechanical characteristics. Materials, 2023, 16: 4610

[134] Martinez JS, et al.. High resolution DLP stereolithography to fabricate biocompatible hydroxyapatite structures that support osteogenesis. PLoS ONE, 2022, 17: e0272283

[135] Li L, et al.. Research on the dimensional accuracy of customized bone augmentation combined with 3D -printing individualized titanium mesh: A retrospective case series study. Clin. Implant Dent. Rel Res., 2021, 23: 5-18

[136] Presotto AGC, Barão VAR, Bhering CLB, Mesquita MF. Dimensional precision of implant-supported frameworks fabricated by 3D printing. J. Prosthet. Dent., 2019, 122: 38-45

[137] Tseng P-C, et al.. Direct ink writing with dental composites: A paradigm shift toward sustainable chair-side production. Dent. Mater., 2024, 40: 1753-1761

[138] Sherman SL, Kadioglu O, Currier GF, Kierl JP, Li J. Accuracy of digital light processing printing of 3-dimensional dental models. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthopedics, 2020, 157: 422-428

[139] Chen S, et al.. Review on residual stresses in metal additive manufacturing: formation mechanisms, parameter dependencies, prediction and control approaches. J. Mater. Res. Technol., 2022, 17: 2950-2974

[140] Zohdi N, Yang R. (Chunhui). Material anisotropy in additively manufactured polymers and polymer composites: A review. Polymers, 2021, 13: 3368

[141] Dadkhah M, Tulliani J-M, Saboori A, Iuliano L. Additive manufacturing of ceramics: Advances, challenges, and outlook. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc., 2023, 43: 6635-6664

[142] Al-Maharma AY, Patil SP, Markert B. Effects of porosity on the mechanical properties of additively manufactured components: A critical review. Mater. Res. Express, 2020, 7: 122001

[143] Evans SL. Fatigue crack propagation under variable amplitude loading in PMMA and bone cement. J. Mater. Sci Mater. Med, 2007, 18: 1711-1717

[144] Prasadh S, et al.. Biomechanics of alloplastic mandible reconstruction using biomaterials: The effect of implant design on stress concentration influences choice of material. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 2020, 103 103548

[145] Qiao Y, Salviato M. Micro-computed tomography analysis of damage in notched composite laminates under multi-axial fatigue. Compos. Part B: Eng., 2020, 187: 107789

[146] Lisiak-Myszke M, et al.. Application of finite element analysis in oral and maxillofacial surgery—a literature review. Materials, 2020, 13: 3063

[147] Didziokas M, et al.. Multiscale mechanical characterisation of the craniofacial system under external forces. Biomech. Model Mechanobiol., 2024, 23: 675-685

[148] Guo J, et al.. Multibody dynamics modeling of human mandibular musculoskeletal system and its applications in surgical planning. Multibody Syst. Dyn., 2023, 57: 299-325

[149] Yin M, Zhang E, Yu Y, Karniadakis GE. Interfacing finite elements with deep neural operators for fast multiscale modeling of mechanics problems. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 2022, 402: 115027

[150] Garcia SN, Gutierrez L, McNulty A. Real-time cellular analysis as a novel approach for in vitro cytotoxicity testing of medical device extracts. J. Biomed. Mater. Res, 2013, 101A: 2097-2106

[151] Kheder W, et al.. Titanium Particles Modulate Lymphocyte and Macrophage Polarization in Peri-Implant Gingival Tissues. IJMS, 2023, 24: 11644

[152] Gai X, et al.. A novel method for evaluating the dynamic biocompatibility of degradable biomaterials based on real-time cell analysis. Regener. Biomater., 2020, 7: 321-329

[153] Wancket LM. Animal models for evaluation of bone implants and devices: Comparative bone structure and common model uses. Vet. Pathol., 2015, 52: 842-850

[154] Li Y, et al.. Bone defect animal models for testing efficacy of bone substitute biomaterials. J. Orthop. Transl., 2015, 3: 95-104

[155] Wang S, et al.. Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals in vivo osteoimmunology interactions between the immune and skeletal systems. Front. Endocrinol., 2023, 14: 1107511

[156] Hatt LP, et al.. Standard in vitro evaluations of engineered bone substitutes are not sufficient to predict in vivo preclinical model outcomes. Acta Biomater., 2023, 156: 177-189

[157] Mansoorifar A, Gordon R, Bergan RC, Bertassoni LE. Bone-on-a-chip: Microfluidic technologies and microphysiologic models of bone tissue. Adv. Funct. Mater., 2021, 31: 2006796

[158] Chen Y-C, et al.. Long-term in vitro degradation and in vivo evaluation of resorbable bioceramics. J. Mater. Sci: Mater. Med, 2021, 32: 13

[159] Zeiter S, et al.. Evaluation of preclinical models for the testing of bone tissue-engineered constructs. Tissue Eng. Part C: Methods, 2020, 26: 107-117

[160] Wang J, et al.. Nanostructured titanium regulates osseointegration via influencing macrophage polarization in the osteogenic environment. IJN, 2018, ume 13: 4029-4043

[161] Kyllönen L, et al.. Effects of different serum conditions on osteogenic differentiation of human adipose stem cells in vitro. Stem Cell Res. Ther., 2013, 4: 17

[162] Lee H, Kang K-T. Advanced tube formation assay using human endothelial colony forming cells for in vitro evaluation of angiogenesis. Korean J. Physiol. Pharm., 2018, 22: 705

[163] Inomata K, Honda M. Co-culture of osteoblasts and endothelial cells on a microfiber scaffold to construct bone-like tissue with vascular networks. Materials, 2019, 12: 2869

[164] Jusoh N, Oh S, Kim S, Kim J, Jeon NL. Microfluidic vascularized bone tissue model with hydroxyapatite-incorporated extracellular matrix. Lab Chip, 2015, 15: 3984-3988

[165] Verbicaro T, et al.. Osteocalcin immunohistochemical expression during repair of critical-sized bone defects treated with subcutaneous adipose tissue in rat and rabbit animal model. Braz. Dent. J., 2013, 24: 559-564

[166] Tsiklin IL, Shabunin AV, Kolsanov AV, Volova LT. In vivo bone tissue engineering strategies: Advances and prospects. Polymers, 2022, 14: 3222

[167] Udagawa A, et al.. Micro- CT observation of angiogenesis in bone regeneration. Clin. Oral. Implants Res, 2013, 24: 787-792

[168] Dalfino S, et al.. Regeneration of critical-sized mandibular defects using 3D-printed composite scaffolds: A quantitative evaluation of new bone formation in in vivo studies. Adv. Healthc. Mater., 2023, 12 2300128

[169] Riehakainen L, et al.. Assessment of tissue response in vivo: PET-CT imaging of titanium and biodegradable magnesium implants. Acta Biomater., 2024, 184: 461-472

[170] Ehnert S, Rinderknecht H, Aspera-Werz RH, Häussling V, Nussler AK. Use of in vitro bone models to screen for altered bone metabolism, osteopathies, and fracture healing: challenges of complex models. Arch. Toxicol., 2020, 94: 3937-3958

[171] Negrescu A-M, Cimpean A. The state of the art and prospects for osteoimmunomodulatory biomaterials. Materials, 2021, 14: 1357

[172] Taguchi T, Lopez MJ. An overview of de novo bone generation in animal models. J. Orthop. Res., 2021, 39: 7-21

[173] Hatt LP, Thompson K, Helms JA, Stoddart MJ, Armiento AR. Clinically relevant preclinical animal models for testing novel cranio-maxillofacial bone 3D-printed biomaterials. Clin. Transl. Med, 2022, 12: e690

[174] Gao H, Huang J, Wei Q, He C. Advances in animal models for studying bone fracture healing. Bioengineering, 2023, 10: 201

[175] Gulati K, et al.. Craniofacial therapy: Advanced local therapies from nano-engineered titanium implants to treat craniofacial conditions. Int J. Oral. Sci., 2023, 15: 15

[176] Wu Y, et al.. An overview of 3D printed metal implants in orthopedic applications: Present and future perspectives. Heliyon, 2023, 9 e17718

[177] Gharehdaghi N, Nokhbatolfoghahaei H, Khojasteh A. 4D printing of smart scaffolds for bone regeneration: A systematic review. Biomed. Mater., 2025, 20: 012003

[178] Grunert R, et al.. Concept of patient-specific shape memory implants for the treatment of orbital floor fractures. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg., 2017, 21: 179-185

[179] Baker RM, Tseng L-F, Iannolo MT, Oest ME, Henderson JH. Self-deploying shape memory polymer scaffolds for grafting and stabilizing complex bone defects: A mouse femoral segmental defect study. Biomaterials, 2016, 76: 388-398

[180] Oldroyd P, Hadwe SE, Barone DG, Malliaras GG. Thin-film implants for bioelectronic medicine. MRS Bull., 2024, 49: 1045-1058

[181] Najjari A, et al.. Smart piezoelectric biomaterials for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: a review. Biomed. Eng. / Biomedizinische Tech., 2022, 67: 71-88

[182] Memon AR, Li J, Egger J, Chen X. A review on patient-specific facial and cranial implant design using Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques. Expert Rev. Med. Devices, 2021, 18: 985-994

[183] Revilla-León M, et al.. Artificial intelligence applications in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J. Prosthet. Dent., 2023, 129: 293-300

[184] Drakoulas G, et al.. An explainable machine learning-based probabilistic framework for the design of scaffolds in bone tissue engineering. Biomech. Model Mechanobiol., 2024, 23: 987-1012

[185] Omigbodun FT, Oladapo BI. AI-optimized lattice structures for biomechanics scaffold design. Biomimetics, 2025, 10: 88

[186] Bose S, Ke D, Sahasrabudhe H, Bandyopadhyay A. Additive manufacturing of biomaterials. Prog. Mater. Sci., 2018, 93: 45-111

[187] Shi Y, et al.. Influence of processing parameters on additively manufactured architected cellular metals: Emphasis on biomedical applications. JFB, 2025, 16: 53

[188] Miki T, Yamada T. Topology optimization considering the distortion in additive manufacturing. Finite Elem. Anal. Des., 2021, 193: 103558

[189] Yan W, et al.. An integrated process–structure–property modeling framework for additive manufacturing. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 2018, 339: 184-204

[190] Adak D, Sreeramagiri P, Roy S, Balasubramanian G. Advances and challenges in predictive modeling for additive manufacturing of dissimilar metals and complex alloys. Materials, 2023, 16: 5680

[191] Croom BP, Berkson M, Mueller RK, Presley M, Storck S. Deep learning prediction of stress fields in additively manufactured metals with intricate defect networks. Mech. Mater., 2022, 165: 104191

[192] Kononenko DY, et al.. Designing materials by laser powder bed fusion with machine learning-driven bi-objective optimization. J. Mater. Res. Technol., 2024, 30: 6802-6811

[193] Wu C, et al.. Machine learning-based design for additive manufacturing in biomedical engineering. Int. J. Mech. Sci., 2024, 266 108828

[194] Yang S, Wang L, Chen Q, Xu M. In situ process monitoring and automated multi-parameter evaluation using optical coherence tomography during extrusion-based bioprinting. Addit. Manuf., 2021, 47: 102251

[195] De Stefano M, Ruggiero A. A critical review of human jaw biomechanical modeling. Appl. Sci., 2024, 14: 3813

[196] Seth I, et al.. Digital twins use in plastic surgery: A systematic review. JCM, 2024, 13: 7861

[197] Ahn S, et al.. Toward digital twin development for implant placement planning using a parametric reduced-order model. Bioengineering, 2024, 11: 84

[198] Dua R, Jones H, Noble PC. Evaluation of bone formation on orthopedic implant surfaces using an ex-vivo bone bioreactor system. Sci. Rep., 2021, 11 22509

[199] Khosravi R, et al.. A computational bio-chemo-mechanical model of in vivo tissue-engineered vascular graft development. Integr. Biol., 2020, 12: 47-63

[200] Ramezani M, Mohd Ripin Z. 4D printing in biomedical engineering: Advancements, challenges, and future directions. JFB, 2023, 14: 347

[201] Kumar R, et al.. A comprehensive review of advancements in additive manufacturing for 3D printed medical components using diverse materials. Discov. Mater., 2025, 5: 152

[202] Ritchie RO. The conflicts between strength and toughness. Nat. Mater., 2011, 10: 817-822

[203] International Organization for Standardization. Dentistry — Implants — Dynamic loading test for endosseous dental implants, ISO 14801:2016. (2016).

[204] International Organization for Standardization. Biological evaluation of medical devices — Part 6: Tests for local effects after implantation, ISO 10993-6:2016. (2016).

[205] International Organization for Standardization. Biological evaluation of medical devices — Part 5: Tests for in vitro cytotoxicity, ISO 10993-5:2017. (2017).

[206] International Organization for Standardization. Biological evaluation of medical devices — Part 4: Selection of tests for interactions with blood, ISO 10993-4:2017. (2017).

[207] Xu Y, et al.. Biomimetic bone-periosteum scaffold for spatiotemporal regulated innervated bone regeneration and therapy of osteosarcoma. J. Nanobiotechnol, 2024, 22: 250

[208] Pujari-Palmer M, et al.. Pyrophosphate stimulates differentiation, matrix gene expression and alkaline phosphatase activity in osteoblasts. PLoS ONE, 2016, 11: e0163530

[209] Dębski T, et al.. Scaffold vascularization method using an adipose-derived stem cell (ASC)-seeded scaffold prefabricated with a flow-through pedicle. Stem Cell Res Ther., 2020, 11: 34

[210] Zieliński R, et al.. Comparative evaluation of bone–implant contact in various surface-treated dental implants using high-resolution micro-CT in Rabbits’ bone. Materials, 2024, 17: 5396

[211] Verbist M, et al.. Reconstruction of craniomaxillofacial bone defects with 3D-printed bioceramic implants: scoping review and clinical case series. JCM, 2024, 13: 2805

[212] Selvaraj S, Dorairaj J, Shivasankar N. 3d cranial reconstruction using titanium implant – a case report. Afr. H. Sci., 2022, 22: 383-390

[213] Lee U-L, et al.. A clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 3D printed bioceramic implants for the reconstruction of zygomatic bone defects. Materials, 2020, 13: 4515

[214] Darwich K, Ismail MB, Al-Mozaiek MYA-S, Alhelwani A. Reconstruction of mandible using a computer-designed 3D-printed patient-specific titanium implant: a case report. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg., 2021, 25: 103-111

[215] Li Y, et al.. Clinical application of 3D-printed PEEK implants for repairing mandibular defects. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg., 2022, 50: 621-626

[216] Targońska S, et al.. Design, clinical applications and post-surgical assessment of bioresorbable 3D-printed craniofacial composite implants. Biomater. Sci., 2024, 12: 3374-3388

Funding

National University of Singapore (NUS)(A-8000-126-00-00)

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s)