Repeating waveform matrix without solid framework structures considerably reduces device stiffness and is comparable to the material stiffness of PEEK
Edge-to-edge uniform porosity disperses dynamic loading on the vertebral endplates providing a unique Snowshoe Effect™ that allows bone to adapt to the device2
SURFACE ENHANCED STRUCTURALLY ADVANCED
neoWave™ consists of a 3D-printed consistent waveform matrix that reduces stiffness and provides a load-dispersing Snowshoe Effect™ to lessen the potential for implant subsidence. This uniformly-porous architecture contributes to a device stiffness that is comparable to the material stiffness of cortical bone and PEEK while increasing bone graft volume and providing a lattice for bone ingrowth.
Strength Under Impaction
The patented neoWave™ matrix uniquely dampens impaction loads providing exceptional mechanical integrity to withstand forces during implantation, which has been found to be problematic for some competitive 3D-printed devices.4 In this video, the same sample was impacted into four locations with over 70 aggressive mallet strikes with no visible fractures or deformations and no visible wear debris or flaking.
Most titanium cage designs require solid framework in order to meet the mechanical demands during insertion and postoperative loading. These structures increase stiffness and create loading “hot spots” that can promote subsidence. neoWave™ features a proprietary uniform matrix that decreases stiffness and allows the implant to evenly deflect under compressive loads to mimic a more natural bone-like response.
Engineering mechanical modeling has shown machined titanium to be up to 13x stiffer than neoWave™.5
The proprietary neoWave™ matrix is comprised of a repeating pattern of internal wave-shaped structures that contributes to the reduction in device stiffness yet enhancement of structural strength and durability. Many competitive 3D-printed implants require solid framework to overcome their structural integrity deficiencies.
Ti3D Structural Waveform is designed to reduce the stiffness of the device by deflecting the load through internal wave shaped members, contributing to the ideal stiffness profile; while providing a structurally sound network for strength and durability.
Other 3D printed cages require solid framework to provide mechanical support to hold up to the stresses applied on insertion and postoperative loading.
Subsidence vs. Graft Surface Area
Historically, many interbody manufacturers have attempted to increase internal bone graft volumes by thinning the outer walls of the implant at the cost of concentrating compressive loads over a smaller contact area, which increases the chance for subsidence.
The neoWave™ matrix solves this problem by uniformly spreading compressive forces throughout the implant while maintaining substantial bone graft volume.
Testing has shown that neoWave™ reduces subsidence by 31% at peak loads despite a 29% greater amount of bone graft volume compared to a PEEK interbody implant of an identical footprint.
Firm anchoring and boney incorporation of an interbody device is a key factor in creating a successful fusion. The continuous cephalad/caudal porosity of the neoWave™ matrix allows for consistent boney ingrowth throughout the entirety of the implant.
Sheep Study – bilateral femur model
Bone In-Growth Model
Bilateral model with 20 year history in SORL, Sydney Australia
Sample size at 4 and 12 weeks
Cortical sites: n=6
Cancellouis sites: n=4
Cortical sitese: Shear strength, histology
Cancellous sites: Histology
Bone Apposition at 12 Weeks
1 Data on file provided by Bill Walsh, PhD
2 Data on file provided by Anthony Valdevit, PhD
3 Olivares-Navarrete, R., Hyzy S.L., Gittens, R.A., Berg, M.E., Schneider, J.M., Hotchkiss, K., Schwartz, Z., Boyan, B. D. Osteoblast lineage cells can discriminate microscale topographic features on titanium-aluminum-vanadium surfaces. Ann Biomed Eng. 2014 Dec; 42 (12): 2551-61.
4 Donovan, Bill. “Updating IFU’s for Stryker’s 3D Tritanium Implant.” Orthopedics This Week, vol. 15, no. 9, 12 March 2019, pp. 11-15.
5 Data on file