Bibliometric Analysis of Biomaterial Additive Manufacturing for Orthopedic Applications: Research Trends and Future Research Directions

Saeful Rofi Romadhon; Muhammad Muryanto; Nurfiani

doi:10.54199/54cp7e15

Authors

Saeful Rofi Romadhon Universitas Muhammadiyah Brebes
Muhammad Muryanto Universitas Muhammadiyah Purwokerto
Nurfiani SMK Boedi Oetomo Gandrungmangu

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54199/54cp7e15

Keywords:

bibliometric analysis, additive manufacturing, biomaterials, orthopedic applications, 3D printing

Abstract

Advances in additive manufacturing have brought about significant changes in the development of biomaterials for orthopedic applications through the ability to produce implants and scaffolds with complex geometries, good mechanical properties, and the ability to be customized to patient needs. The rapid increase in the number of publications in this field has led to an ever-growing diversity of scientific information, necessitating a study capable of comprehensively mapping research trends. This study aims to analyze research trends regarding Additive Manufacturing of Biomaterials for Orthopedic Applications using a bibliometric approach. Data were obtained from the Scopus database through a search strategy employing a combination of relevant keywords. After filtering based on publication year (2020–2026), subject field (engineering, medicine), document type (articles), language (English), and keywords (biomaterials, 3D printing), 119 articles were selected as the research dataset. Next, the metadata was analyzed using the Biblioshiny software within the Bibliometrix package in R. The analysis included descriptive statistics, annual publication trends, author productivity, keyword co-occurrence networks, thematic evolution, and thematic maps. The results showed that the number of publications increased during the study period, with dominant themes including biomaterials, three-dimensional printing, and biocompatibility. The thematic evolution analysis revealed a shift in research from the development of basic biomaterials toward more specific applications, such as tissue engineering, patient-specific implants, and highly biocompatible biomaterials. This study provides a comprehensive overview of research developments and identifies potential directions for future research.

References

[1] A. V Vasiliadis, N. Koukoulias, and K. Katakalos, “Three-dimensional-printed scaffolds for meniscus tissue engineering: Opportunity for the future in the orthopaedic world,” J. Funct. Biomater., vol. 12, no. 4, 2021.

[2] S. R. Romadhon, W. Hidayat, and B. S. Widagdo, “The Effect of Infill Variation on the Tensile, Bending, Impact, Hardness, and Density Properties of PLA and ABS Materials Produced by FDM,” Multidiscip. Innov. Res. Appl. Eng., vol. 2, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 42–56, 2025.

[3] N. B. Allen, B. Abar, L. Johnson, J. Burbano, R. M. Danilkowicz, and S. B. Adams, “3D-bioprinted GelMA-gelatin-hydroxyapatite osteoblast-laden composite hydrogels for bone tissue engineering,” Bioprinting, vol. 26, 2022.

[4] M. Suffo, C. López-Marín, C. Revenga, and P. Andrés-Cano, “Polyetherimide in 3D printing: Pioneering non-metallic solutions for personalized orthopedic and traumatology hip prosthetics,” Results Eng., vol. 23, 2024.

[5] H. Wu, Z. Li, W. Jiang, K. Lin, C. Zhao, and X. Wang, “3D-printed porous polyether-ether-ketone composite scaffolds for better osteogenic activity,” Mater. Lett., vol. 373, 2024.

[6] Q. Dai et al., “3D printing of Cu-doped bioactive glass composite scaffolds promotes bone regeneration through activating the HIF-1a and TNF-a pathway of hUVECs,” Biomater. Sci., vol. 9, no. 16, pp. 5519–5532, 2021.

[7] Y. Wang et al., “Fabrication and characterization of photosensitive non-isocyanate polyurethane acrylate resin for 3D printing of customized biocompatible orthopedic surgical guides,” Int. J. Bioprinting, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 80–93, 2023.

[8] M. H. Hooshiar et al., “Functionalized 3D-printed scaffolds for enhanced osteogenesis and guided bone regeneration,” J. Mater. Chem. B, vol. 13, no. 22, pp. 6493–6507, 2025.

[9] M. Zanocco et al., “3D-additive deposition of an antibacterial and osteogenic silicon nitride coating on orthopaedic titanium substrate,” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., vol. 103, 2020.

[10] I. Polozov, V. Nefyodov, A. Zolotarev, V. Sokolova, A. Gracheva, and A. Popovich, “Process-structure–property relationships in selective laser melting of Ti-15Ta alloy for biomedical applications,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 139, no. 7–8, pp. 3391–3406, 2025.

[11] L. Upadhayay, B. White, S. Bose, and A. Bandyopadhyay, “Ti6Al4V-Bioglass-Copper Composites for Load-Bearing Implants,” Adv. Healthc. Mater., vol. 15, no. 13, 2026.

[12] M. Rajput, S. Nilawar, and K. Chatterjee, “Embedding Silk Fibroin-Alginate Hydrogel in a 3D-Printed Porous Poly(Lactic Acid) Bone Tissue Scaffold Augments Stem Cell Function,” Regen. Eng. Transl. Med., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 384–396, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s40883-022-00286-7.

[13] M. Meazzo, A. Ramezani, F. Barberis, C. Van Der Straeten, and P. Dubruel, “PEG-Based Hydrogels for Meniscus Replacement: Advancing Scaffold Fabrication Flexibility through a Customized Injection Molding Setup,” ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 3011–3025, 2026.

[14] M. Antonowicz, K. Brzezińska, W. Walke, A. Taratuta, and M. Pawlik, “Biodegradable scaffolds for bone defect treatment,” Acta Bioeng. Biomech., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 115–128, 2023.

[15] A. Panda, K. Dyadyura, A. Smorodin, D. Dmitrishin, and S. Antoshchuk, “INTELLIGENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES TO SUPPORT DECISION-MAKING WHEN APPLYING THE CAD/CAM/CAE SYSTEM OF DESIGN AND USING ADDITIVE TECHNOLOGIES,” MM Sci. J., vol. 2024-June, pp. 7332–7339, 2024.

[16] M. Ly, S. Spinelli, S. Hays, and D. Zhu, “3D Printing of Ceramic Biomaterials,” Eng. Regen., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 41–52, 2022.

[17] I. Hui, E. Pasquier, A. Solberg, K. Agrenius, J. Håkansson, and G. Chinga-Carrasco, “Biocomposites containing poly(lactic acid) and chitosan for 3D printing – Assessment of mechanical, antibacterial and in vitro biodegradability properties,” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., vol. 147, 2023.

[18] S. R. Romadhon, B. Priwintoko, W. Hidayat, and B. S. Widagdo, “Comparative Mechanical Performance of FDM-Printed PETG and ABS at Different Infill Percentages,” Multidiscip. Innov. Res. Appl. Eng., vol. 2, no. 2 SE-Articles, pp. 95–108, 2025.

[19] Q. Li et al., “Polydopamine-Modified PCL/β-TCP Bioprinting Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration and Infection Control,” ACS Appl. Bio Mater., vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 9496–9509, 2025.

[20] S. Li et al., “Piezoelectricity Promotes 3D-Printed BTO/β-TCP Composite Scaffolds with Excellent Osteogenic Performance,” ACS Appl. Bio Mater., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 2204–2214, 2025.

[21] M. Aria and C. Cuccurullo, “bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis,” J. Informetr., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 959–975, 2017.

[22] M. Page et al., “The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, p. n71, Mar. 2021.

[23] P. Wu, X. Liu, Z. Guo, and L. Lau, “Personalization and Precision: Innovative Applications and Future Challenges of Additive Manufacturing in Orthopedic Implants,” J. Orthop. Res., vol. 44, no. 2, 2026.

[24] A. A. Zadpoor, “Meta-biomaterials,” Biomater. Sci., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 18–38, 2020.

[25] D. Zhao et al., “Corrosion fatigue behavior and anti-fatigue mechanisms of an additively manufactured biodegradable zinc-magnesium gyroid scaffold,” Acta Biomater., vol. 153, pp. 614–629, 2022.

[26] C. Zhou et al., “Fabrication and properties of PLA/nano-HA composite scaffolds with balanced mechanical properties and biological functions for bone tissue engineering application,” Nanotechnol. Rev., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1359–1373, 2021.

[27] D. Chen et al., “Strength enhancement and modulus modulation in auxetic meta-biomaterials produced by selective laser melting,” Acta Biomater., vol. 153, pp. 596–613, 2022.