SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 4

Comparison of Raw Materials Used in Customized Implant Systems through Finite Element Analysis and Dynamic Fatigue Testing

Vildan Fadime Demirezen(Karabuk University)0000-0002-4640-6861
Kenan Işık(KARABÜK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0973-5180
Pages
999–1006
Publication Date
2025-07-15
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Based on the evaluations, CoCr was identified as a more durable material, and in terms of manufacturing methods, parts produced by subtractive manufacturing were found to be more durable.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Customized implants offer many advantages in medical implant applications.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The cobalt-chromium alloy demonstrated the highest rupture value (5.9 kN) in static tests; furthermore, it exhibited the highest value (562,189 cycles) when the rupture cycle was analyzed in dynamic tests.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on the evaluations, CoCr was identified as a more durable material, and in terms of manufacturing methods, parts produced by subtractive manufacturing were found to be more durable.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Customized Implant · Material · Finite element analysis

Abstract

Customized implants offer many advantages in medical implant applications. Material selection from the limited biocompatible material choices plays a crucial role in the success of the treatment. In this study, we compare the results obtained from dynamic fatigue testing and finite element analysis of raw materials planned for use in personalized implant systems which were made possible by the advancements in production technologies and their widespread adoption in the medical sector. The study first discusses the concept of customized implants and the materials necessary for these implants. Multiple test samples were then produced using subtractive and additive manufacturing methods according to specified dimensions using the selected materials. Static and dynamic tests were applied to the produced samples. The cobalt-chromium alloy demonstrated the highest rupture value (5.9 kN) in static tests; furthermore, it exhibited the highest value (562,189 cycles) when the rupture cycle was analyzed in dynamic tests. The results from these tests were evaluated in terms of materials and manufacturing methods. Based on the evaluations, CoCr was identified as a more durable material, and in terms of manufacturing methods, parts produced by subtractive manufacturing were found to be more durable.

Özet

Customized implants offer many advantages in medical implant applications. Material selection from the limited biocompatible material choices plays a crucial role in the success of the treatment. In this study, we compare the results obtained from dynamic fatigue testing and finite element analysis of raw materials planned for use in personalized implant systems which were made possible by the advancements in production technologies and their widespread adoption in the medical sector. The study first discusses the concept of customized implants and the materials necessary for these implants. Multiple test samples were then produced using subtractive and additive manufacturing methods according to specified dimensions using the selected materials. Static and dynamic tests were applied to the produced samples. The cobalt-chromium alloy demonstrated the highest rupture value (5.9 kN) in static tests; furthermore, it exhibited the highest value (562,189 cycles) when the rupture cycle was analyzed in dynamic tests. The results from these tests were evaluated in terms of materials and manufacturing methods. Based on the evaluations, CoCr was identified as a more durable material, and in terms of manufacturing methods, parts produced by subtractive manufacturing were found to be more durable.

🔖

Cite This Article

Demirezen, V. F., Işık, K. (2025). Comparison of Raw Materials Used in Customized Implant Systems through Finite Element Analysis and Dynamic Fatigue Testing. Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 4, 999–1006. https://doi.org/10.34248/bsengineering.1641111

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (22)

  1. Aherwar A, Singh AK, Patnaik A. 2016. Cobalt based alloy: a better choice biomaterial for hip implants. Trends Biomater Artif Organs, 30(1), pp: 1-7.
  2. Al Jabbari YS. 2014. Physico-mechanical properties and prosthodontic applications of Co-Cr dental alloys: a review of the literature. J Adv Prosthodont, 6(2): 138-145.
  3. Brăileanu PI, Simion I, Bou-Said B, Crişan N. 2018. Custom hip implant design optimisation, 2018 19th Int Conf Res Educ Mechatron, Delft, NL, pp: 58-63.
  4. Çetiner D, Tazegül O, Atar E, Çimenoğlu H. 2014. Biyomedikal kobalt-krom alaşımı üzerinde oluşturulan TiO2 tabakasının karakterizasyonu ve biyoaktivitesinin incelenmesi. Müh Bilim Tasarım Derg, 2(3): 171-174.
  5. de Jong IJ, Lexis MA, Slegers K, Tuijthof GJ. 2024. Medical device regulation: requirements for occupational therapists in The Netherlands who prescribe and manufacture custom-made devices. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 19(4): 1415-1423.
  6. de Viteri VS, Fuentes E. 2013. Titanium and titanium alloys as biomaterials. Tribol Fundam Adv, 1(5): 154-181.
  7. Du R, Su YX, Yan Y, Choi WS, Yang WF, Zhang C, Chen X, Curtin JP, Ouyang J, Zhang B. 2020. A systematic approach for making 3D-printed patient-specific implants for craniomaxillofacial reconstruction. Eng, 6(11): 1291-1301.
  8. Gür AK, Taşkın M. 2004. Metalik biyomalzemeler ve biyouyum. Fırat Üniv Doğu Araş Derg, 2(2): 106-113.
  9. Güven Ş. 2014. Biyouyumluluk ve biyomalzemelerin seçimi. Müh Bilim Tasarım Derg, 2(3): 303-311.
  10. Joshi T, Sharma R, Mittal VK, Gupta V, Krishan G. 2022. Dynamic analysis of hip prosthesis using different biocompatible alloys. ASME Open J Eng, 1. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4053417
  11. Matias M, Zenha H, Costa H. 2017. Three-dimensional printing: custom-made implants for craniomaxillofacial reconstructive surgery. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr, 10(2): 89-98.
  12. Nemtoi A, Covrig V, Nemtoi A, Stoica G, Vatavu R, Haba D, Zetu I. 2022. Custom-made direct metal laser sintering titanium subperiosteal implants in oral and maxillofacial surgery for severe bone deficient patients—a pilot study. Diagnostics, 12(10): 2531. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12102531
  13. Saini M, Singh Y, Arora P, Arora V, Jain K. 2015. Implant biomaterials: a comprehensive review. World J Clin Cases, 3(1): 52-57.
  14. Subaşı M, Karataş Ç. 2012. Titanyum ve titanyum alaşımlarından yapılan implantlar üzerine inceleme. Politeknik Derg, 15(2): 87-103.
  15. Şap E, Çelik H. 2012. Kobalt esaslı alaşımların mikroyapı ve mekanik özelliklerine Ti ve Mn ilavesinin etkisinin incelenmesi. Makine Tekn Elektron Derg, 9(3): 25-33.
  16. Şap E, Çelik H. 2013. Co-Cr-Mo esaslı alaşımın özelliklerine bazı metallerin etkisinin incelenmesi. Doğa Fen Bilim Derg, 2(2): pp: 1-6.
  17. Şap S, Şap E, Kırık İ. 2019. Titanyum ve alaşımlarının biyomalzeme olarak kullanılması, III. Uluslararası Battalgazi Bilimsel Çalışmalar Kongresi, Malatya, Türkiye, pp: 1052.
  18. Uzun İH, Bayındır F. 2010. Dental uygulamalarda titanyum ve özellikleri. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg, 3: 213-220.
  19. Ventola CL. 2014. Medical applications for 3D printing: current and projected uses. Pharm Ther, 39(10): 704-711.
  20. Wong KC. 2016. 3D-printed patient-specific applications in orthopedics. Orthop Res Rev, 8: 57-66.
  21. Yao Y, Mo Z, Wu G, Guo J, Li J, Wang L, Fan Y. 2021. A personalized 3D-printed plate for tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis: design, fabrication, biomechanical evaluation and postoperative assessment. Comput Biol Med, 133: 104368.
  22. Yılmaz H. 1998. Titanyum ve protetik diş tedavisinde kullanımı. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg, 8(1): 1-6.