Computational Modeling of Bone-Implant Construct Osseointegration: Advantages and Shortcomings

Yunus  Rezvanifar; Mohammed Najafi  Ashtiani; Gholamreza  Rouhi

doi:10.18502/jost.v12i1.21121

Yunus Rezvanifar MSc Student, Department of Aerospace, School of Mechanical Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
Mohammed Najafi Ashtiani Assistant Professor, Department of Physiotherapy, School of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
Gholamreza Rouhi Associate Professor, Department of Biomechanics, Joint Reconstruction Research Center, School of Biomedical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/jost.v12i1.21121

Keywords: Osseointegration; Prostheses and Implants; Bone-Implant Interface; Fracture Healing; Computer Simulation; Finite Element Analysis

Abstract

Background: Osseointegration (OI), the direct structural and functional connection between living bone and implants, remains poorly understood despite being critical for implant success. Current bone implant designs lack optimization due to limited understanding of the multifactorial mechanical, chemical, and biological processes which govern the OI process.

Methods: This systematic review analyzed studies published in English using numerical/mathematical methods to model OI. A PubMed search was conducted up to July 2025, and full-text articles were screened for keywords including "osseointegration," "healing," "bone generation," "computer simulations," "finite element models," and "mechanobiological model." The selected studies encompassed various species, tissue types, and computational procedures. Articles were categorized by modeling approach: mechanical, biological, and compound models.

Results: Seventeen articles met the inclusion criteria. Ten studies had employed mechanobiological algorithms simulating bone formation around implants, focusing on mechanical factors. Four studies had developed bioregulatory algorithms, targeting biological aspects. Three studies had created compound models integrating both mechanical and biological factors. Current models successfully predicted key mechanical influences but showed limitations in capturing complete biological complexity.

Conclusion: Mathematical models of OI face significant challenges in accurately considering both biological and mechanical factors simultaneously, often oversimplifying one aspect, while focusing on the other. Their key limitations include unrealistic boundary conditions, computational constraints, and incomplete understanding of biophysical signal translation. Moreover, most models rely on animal studies with interspecies differences and adapt bone healing algorithms rather than developing OI-specific approaches. Despite these challenges, mechanobiological models offer promising insights for optimizing implant design, though developing comprehensive models requires substantial experimental investment and computational resources