Cargando…
Influence of Additive Manufactured Scaffold Architecture on the Distribution of Surface Strains and Fluid Flow Shear Stresses and Expected Osteochondral Cell Differentiation
Scaffolds for regenerative medicine applications should instruct cells with the appropriate signals, including biophysical stimuli such as stress and strain, to form the desired tissue. Apart from that, scaffolds, especially for load-bearing applications, should be capable of providing mechanical st...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5300985/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28239606 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2017.00006 |
_version_ | 1782506276347969536 |
---|---|
author | Hendrikson, Wim J. Deegan, Anthony J. Yang, Ying van Blitterswijk, Clemens A. Verdonschot, Nico Moroni, Lorenzo Rouwkema, Jeroen |
author_facet | Hendrikson, Wim J. Deegan, Anthony J. Yang, Ying van Blitterswijk, Clemens A. Verdonschot, Nico Moroni, Lorenzo Rouwkema, Jeroen |
author_sort | Hendrikson, Wim J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Scaffolds for regenerative medicine applications should instruct cells with the appropriate signals, including biophysical stimuli such as stress and strain, to form the desired tissue. Apart from that, scaffolds, especially for load-bearing applications, should be capable of providing mechanical stability. Since both scaffold strength and stress–strain distributions throughout the scaffold depend on the scaffold’s internal architecture, it is important to understand how changes in architecture influence these parameters. In this study, four scaffold designs with different architectures were produced using additive manufacturing. The designs varied in fiber orientation, while fiber diameter, spacing, and layer height remained constant. Based on micro-CT (μCT) scans, finite element models (FEMs) were derived for finite element analysis (FEA) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD). FEA of scaffold compression was validated using μCT scan data of compressed scaffolds. Results of the FEA and CFD showed a significant impact of scaffold architecture on fluid shear stress and mechanical strain distribution. The average fluid shear stress ranged from 3.6 mPa for a 0/90 architecture to 6.8 mPa for a 0/90 offset architecture, and the surface shear strain from 0.0096 for a 0/90 offset architecture to 0.0214 for a 0/90 architecture. This subsequently resulted in variations of the predicted cell differentiation stimulus values on the scaffold surface. Fluid shear stress was mainly influenced by pore shape and size, while mechanical strain distribution depended mainly on the presence or absence of supportive columns in the scaffold architecture. Together, these results corroborate that scaffold architecture can be exploited to design scaffolds with regions that guide specific tissue development under compression and perfusion. In conjunction with optimization of stimulation regimes during bioreactor cultures, scaffold architecture optimization can be used to improve scaffold design for tissue engineering purposes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5300985 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53009852017-02-24 Influence of Additive Manufactured Scaffold Architecture on the Distribution of Surface Strains and Fluid Flow Shear Stresses and Expected Osteochondral Cell Differentiation Hendrikson, Wim J. Deegan, Anthony J. Yang, Ying van Blitterswijk, Clemens A. Verdonschot, Nico Moroni, Lorenzo Rouwkema, Jeroen Front Bioeng Biotechnol Bioengineering and Biotechnology Scaffolds for regenerative medicine applications should instruct cells with the appropriate signals, including biophysical stimuli such as stress and strain, to form the desired tissue. Apart from that, scaffolds, especially for load-bearing applications, should be capable of providing mechanical stability. Since both scaffold strength and stress–strain distributions throughout the scaffold depend on the scaffold’s internal architecture, it is important to understand how changes in architecture influence these parameters. In this study, four scaffold designs with different architectures were produced using additive manufacturing. The designs varied in fiber orientation, while fiber diameter, spacing, and layer height remained constant. Based on micro-CT (μCT) scans, finite element models (FEMs) were derived for finite element analysis (FEA) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD). FEA of scaffold compression was validated using μCT scan data of compressed scaffolds. Results of the FEA and CFD showed a significant impact of scaffold architecture on fluid shear stress and mechanical strain distribution. The average fluid shear stress ranged from 3.6 mPa for a 0/90 architecture to 6.8 mPa for a 0/90 offset architecture, and the surface shear strain from 0.0096 for a 0/90 offset architecture to 0.0214 for a 0/90 architecture. This subsequently resulted in variations of the predicted cell differentiation stimulus values on the scaffold surface. Fluid shear stress was mainly influenced by pore shape and size, while mechanical strain distribution depended mainly on the presence or absence of supportive columns in the scaffold architecture. Together, these results corroborate that scaffold architecture can be exploited to design scaffolds with regions that guide specific tissue development under compression and perfusion. In conjunction with optimization of stimulation regimes during bioreactor cultures, scaffold architecture optimization can be used to improve scaffold design for tissue engineering purposes. Frontiers Media S.A. 2017-02-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5300985/ /pubmed/28239606 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2017.00006 Text en Copyright © 2017 Hendrikson, Deegan, Yang, van Blitterswijk, Verdonschot, Moroni and Rouwkema. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Bioengineering and Biotechnology Hendrikson, Wim J. Deegan, Anthony J. Yang, Ying van Blitterswijk, Clemens A. Verdonschot, Nico Moroni, Lorenzo Rouwkema, Jeroen Influence of Additive Manufactured Scaffold Architecture on the Distribution of Surface Strains and Fluid Flow Shear Stresses and Expected Osteochondral Cell Differentiation |
title | Influence of Additive Manufactured Scaffold Architecture on the Distribution of Surface Strains and Fluid Flow Shear Stresses and Expected Osteochondral Cell Differentiation |
title_full | Influence of Additive Manufactured Scaffold Architecture on the Distribution of Surface Strains and Fluid Flow Shear Stresses and Expected Osteochondral Cell Differentiation |
title_fullStr | Influence of Additive Manufactured Scaffold Architecture on the Distribution of Surface Strains and Fluid Flow Shear Stresses and Expected Osteochondral Cell Differentiation |
title_full_unstemmed | Influence of Additive Manufactured Scaffold Architecture on the Distribution of Surface Strains and Fluid Flow Shear Stresses and Expected Osteochondral Cell Differentiation |
title_short | Influence of Additive Manufactured Scaffold Architecture on the Distribution of Surface Strains and Fluid Flow Shear Stresses and Expected Osteochondral Cell Differentiation |
title_sort | influence of additive manufactured scaffold architecture on the distribution of surface strains and fluid flow shear stresses and expected osteochondral cell differentiation |
topic | Bioengineering and Biotechnology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5300985/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28239606 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2017.00006 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hendriksonwimj influenceofadditivemanufacturedscaffoldarchitectureonthedistributionofsurfacestrainsandfluidflowshearstressesandexpectedosteochondralcelldifferentiation AT deegananthonyj influenceofadditivemanufacturedscaffoldarchitectureonthedistributionofsurfacestrainsandfluidflowshearstressesandexpectedosteochondralcelldifferentiation AT yangying influenceofadditivemanufacturedscaffoldarchitectureonthedistributionofsurfacestrainsandfluidflowshearstressesandexpectedosteochondralcelldifferentiation AT vanblitterswijkclemensa influenceofadditivemanufacturedscaffoldarchitectureonthedistributionofsurfacestrainsandfluidflowshearstressesandexpectedosteochondralcelldifferentiation AT verdonschotnico influenceofadditivemanufacturedscaffoldarchitectureonthedistributionofsurfacestrainsandfluidflowshearstressesandexpectedosteochondralcelldifferentiation AT moronilorenzo influenceofadditivemanufacturedscaffoldarchitectureonthedistributionofsurfacestrainsandfluidflowshearstressesandexpectedosteochondralcelldifferentiation AT rouwkemajeroen influenceofadditivemanufacturedscaffoldarchitectureonthedistributionofsurfacestrainsandfluidflowshearstressesandexpectedosteochondralcelldifferentiation |