TABLE 1.
A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of different implant materials
| Implant materials | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Autogenous bone | Easy sampling | Donor site pain |
| Good biocompatibility | Infection | |
| Complete histocompatibility | Long operative time and bleeding | |
| Without immune rejection | Subsidence | |
| High fusion rate | Pseudoarthrosis | |
| Insufficient supply | ||
| Allogenic bone | Sufficient supply | Poor bioactivity |
| Shorter operative time | Immune rejection | |
| Less bleeding (compared to autogenous bone) | Transmission of infectious disease | |
| High fusion rate | Poor healing | |
| Relatively inexpensive | Aseptic loosening | |
| Bioactive ceramics (CS, HAP, TCP) | Excellent bioactivity | Lack plasticity |
| Good biodegradability | ||
| Good biocompatibility | ||
| Bone cement (mainly PMMA) | Good plasticity | Toxicity |
| Short setting time | Graft dislodgement | |
| Relatively inexpensive | Esophageal perforation | |
| Thermal damage to the spinal cord | ||
| Compress surrounding tissues | ||
| TMC | Maintain the height of vertebral body | cage migration |
| Immediate stability | Subsidence | |
| Good biocompatibility | High elastic modulus | |
| High fusion rate | Stress shielding | |
| Artifacts during imaging | ||
| PEEK | Moderate modulus of elasticity | Bioinert |
| Optimal loading | Micromotion | |
| Without stress shielding | Relatively expensive | |
| Good chemical resistance | ||
| Radiolucent | ||
| Suitable mechanical property | ||
| 3D‐printed vertebral body | Personalized customization | Relatively expensive |
| Low subsidence | ||
| Low pseudoarthrosis | ||
| Maintain intervertebral height | ||
| Maintain cervical physiological curvature |
Abbreviations: CS, calcium silicate; HAP, hydroxyapatite; PEEK, polyetheretherketone; PMMA, polymethylmethacrylate; TCP, tricalcium phosphate; TMC, titanium mesh cage.