Additive manufacturing enables tailoring crystallographic orientation in metallic biomaterials, offering new possibilities for implant design. The <110> orientation, with its lower elastic modulus and twinning-dominated deformation, enhances ductility and improves the strength–ductility balance. Grains aligned along <110> are prone to mechanical twinning; the combined action of slip and twinning promotes strain hardening, delays necking, and provides excellent elongation. [3] Given the anisotropic nature of bone, such orientations are expected to improve both mechanical performance and cell–material interactions. [4] 

In the preliminary work, three different parameter sets (1B, 2B, 3B) of SLM 316L stainless steel were fabricated using laser powers ranging from 107 to 250 W, combined with varying scan speeds, hatch spacings, and layer thicknesses. EBSD results revealed that the 1B sample, produced with a laser power of 195 W, scan speed 1000 mm/s, hatch spacing 90 µm, layer thickness 20 µm, VED ~108.3 J/mm³, 90° rotation strategy), exhibited the highest <110> texture fraction (62.7%). [5] Cell viability assays (days 1 and 3) showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05), with SLM samples exhibiting higher osteoblast activity than the conventional samples, as shown in Figure 1. [2] Cell spreading analysis performed using ImageJ confirmed that osteoblasts exhibited the largest spreading areas on the 1B surfaces. Therefore, the 1B set was selected for dog-bone specimen fabrication for mechanical testing. Tensile tests showed an elastic modulus of ~144 ± 11 GP, ultimate tensile strength ~546 MPa, and elongation ~56%, while microhardness increased from 229 HV (as-built) to ~262 HV with increasing strain, confirming the superior mechanical stability of the <110>-oriented material through twinning-assisted hardening. [1] 

In future studies, viability analyses will be extended to 1B samples subjected to different tensile deformation levels to establish correlations between deformation mechanisms (slip vs. twinning) and cellular responses.

References
[1] M. Güden; H. Yavaş; A.A. Tanrıkulu; A. Taşdemirci; B. Akın; S. Enser; A. Karakuş; B.A. Hamat Materials Science and Engineering: A, 2021, 824, 1-14
[2] M.J.K. Lodhi; K.M. Deen; M.C. Greenlee-Wacker; W. Haider Additive Manufacturing, 2019, 27, 8–19.
[3] J.J. Marattukalam; D. Karlsson; V. Pacheco; P. Beran; U. Wiklund; U. Jansson; B. Hjörvarsson; M. Sahlberg Materials & Design, 2020, 193, 1-11.
[4] T. Nakano Advances in Metallic Biomaterials, 2015, 3, 3–30.
[5] C. Zhao; Y. Bai; Y. Zhang; X. Wang; J.M. Xue; H. Wang Materials & Design, 2021, 209, 1-15.