Lattice Structures in Additive Manufacturing for Biomedical Applications: A Systematic Review

Abstract

The present study offers a systematic review of the current state of research on lattice structures manufactured by additive technologies for biomedical applications, with the aim of identifying common patterns, such as the use of triply periodic minimal surfaces (TPMS) for bone scaffolds, as well as technological gaps and future research opportunities. Employing the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology, the review process ensures methodological rigor and replicability across the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion phases. Additionally, PRISMA was tailored by prioritizing technical databases and engineering-specific inclusion criteria, thereby aligning the methodology with the scope of this field. In recent years, a substantial surge in interdisciplinary research has underscored the promise of architected porous structures in enhancing mechanical compatibility, fostering osseointegration, and facilitating personalized medicine. A growing body of literature has emerged that explores the optimization of geometric features to replicate the behavior of biological tissues, particularly bone. Additive manufacturing (AM) has played a pivotal role in enabling the fabrication of complex geometries that are otherwise unachievable by conventional methods. The applications of lattice structures range from permanent load-bearing implants, commonly manufactured through selective laser melting (SLM), to temporary scaffolds for tissue regeneration, often produced with extrusion-based processes such as fused filament fabrication (FFF) or direct ink writing (DIW). Notwithstanding these advances, challenges persist in areas such as long-term in vivo validation, standardization of mechanical and biological testing, such as ISO standards for fatigue testing, and integration into clinical workflows.

Keywords: 3D printing; additive manufacturing; architected cellular materials; biomaterials; biomedical applications; lattice structures; systematic review.

Figure 1

Literature search strategy based on Blanco et al. [11].

Figure 2

Terms and synonyms entered in this search. The asterisk (*) serves as an operator that captures any letters that follow it.

Figure 3

Flow chart of the process of selection of the documents found in the search.

Figure 4

Date of publication of the documents selected from the search results, without applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Figure 5

Technologies most frequently found in the literature obtained.

Figure 6

Fabrication materials most frequently found in the literature obtained.

Figure 7

Classification of lattice structures.

Figure 8

Lattice structures most frequently found in the literature obtained.

Figure 9

Main types of 2.5D lattice structures.

Figure 10

Diagram of the behavior of an auxetic structure when subjected to traction along its longitudinal axis. (a) Auxetic structure without loads. (b) Auxetic structure when subjected to traction.

Figure 11

Most common types of non-parametric strut-based lattice structures.

Figure 12

Most common types of non-parametric strut-based lattice structures.

Figure 13

Most common types of non-parametric wall-based lattice structures.

Figure 14

Most common types of non-parametric wall-based lattice structures.

Figure 15

Applications of lattice structures manufactured using additive technologies in the biomedical sector most found in the literature obtained.