Comparative Effects of Porous Tantalum and Porous Titanium: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
systematic_review · Level I
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 40992596.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.arth.2025.09.024.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Porous metals are characterized by high porosity, which contributes to a low Young's modulus and facilitates new bone tissue ingrowth and fluid exchange. Titanium and tantalum are the most widely used porous metals in orthopaedics. Although many studies have compared porous titanium and porous tantalum, their findings remain inconsistent. This study aimed to compare the biological functions of porous titanium and porous tantalum and provide recommendations for clinical decision-making. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. After retrieval and screening, 38 relevant studies on porous titanium and porous tantalum were included. We categorized all research results into four outcome measures: biocompatibility, osteogenic characteristics, biomechanical characteristics, and bacterial adhesion properties, conducting quantitative meta-analysis or qualitative assessment. The implantation sites covered multiple regions, including the cervical vertebra, lumbar vertebra, femur, hip joint, and others. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between porous titanium and porous tantalum in terms of biocompatibility, osteogenic characteristics, and biomechanical characteristics at the cellular, animal, and clinical levels (all P > 0.05). Qualitative assessment of bacterial adhesion properties also revealed no major differences between the two materials. This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that porous titanium and porous tantalum lack statistically significant differences in biological functions. In view of the lower weight, reduced cost, and broad clinical adoption of porous titanium, it is recommended as the preferred option in the absence of clear advantages from porous tantalum.