Cargando…

Permeability versus Design in TPMS Scaffolds

Scaffolds for bone tissue engineering are porous structures that serve as support for cellular growth and, therefore, new tissue formation. The present work assessed the influence of the porous architecture of triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) scaffolds on their macroscopic permeability behavio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Castro, A. P. G., Pires, T., Santos, J. E., Gouveia, B. P., Fernandes, P. R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6515433/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31013656
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma12081313
_version_ 1783418090927685632
author Castro, A. P. G.
Pires, T.
Santos, J. E.
Gouveia, B. P.
Fernandes, P. R.
author_facet Castro, A. P. G.
Pires, T.
Santos, J. E.
Gouveia, B. P.
Fernandes, P. R.
author_sort Castro, A. P. G.
collection PubMed
description Scaffolds for bone tissue engineering are porous structures that serve as support for cellular growth and, therefore, new tissue formation. The present work assessed the influence of the porous architecture of triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) scaffolds on their macroscopic permeability behavior, combining numerical and experimental methods. The TPMS scaffolds considered were Schwartz D, Schwartz P, and Gyroid, which have been previously studied for bone tissue engineering, with 70% porosity. On the experimental side, these scaffolds were produced by MultiJet 3D printing and tested for fluid passage to calculate their permeability through Darcy’s Law. On the numerical side, finite element (FE) models of the scaffolds were simulated on ABAQUS(®) for fluid passage under compression to assess potential fluid concentration spots. The outcomes revealed that the design of the unit cell had a noticeable effect on both calculated permeability and FE computed fluid flow velocity, regardless of the identical porosity, with the Gyroid scaffold having higher permeability and the Schwartz P a lower probability of fluid trapping. Schwartz D had the worst outcomes in both testing modalities, so these scaffolds would most likely be the last choice for promoting cell differentiation onto bone cells. Gyroid and Schwartz P would be up for selection depending on the application and targeted bone tissue.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6515433
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65154332019-05-31 Permeability versus Design in TPMS Scaffolds Castro, A. P. G. Pires, T. Santos, J. E. Gouveia, B. P. Fernandes, P. R. Materials (Basel) Article Scaffolds for bone tissue engineering are porous structures that serve as support for cellular growth and, therefore, new tissue formation. The present work assessed the influence of the porous architecture of triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) scaffolds on their macroscopic permeability behavior, combining numerical and experimental methods. The TPMS scaffolds considered were Schwartz D, Schwartz P, and Gyroid, which have been previously studied for bone tissue engineering, with 70% porosity. On the experimental side, these scaffolds were produced by MultiJet 3D printing and tested for fluid passage to calculate their permeability through Darcy’s Law. On the numerical side, finite element (FE) models of the scaffolds were simulated on ABAQUS(®) for fluid passage under compression to assess potential fluid concentration spots. The outcomes revealed that the design of the unit cell had a noticeable effect on both calculated permeability and FE computed fluid flow velocity, regardless of the identical porosity, with the Gyroid scaffold having higher permeability and the Schwartz P a lower probability of fluid trapping. Schwartz D had the worst outcomes in both testing modalities, so these scaffolds would most likely be the last choice for promoting cell differentiation onto bone cells. Gyroid and Schwartz P would be up for selection depending on the application and targeted bone tissue. MDPI 2019-04-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6515433/ /pubmed/31013656 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma12081313 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Castro, A. P. G.
Pires, T.
Santos, J. E.
Gouveia, B. P.
Fernandes, P. R.
Permeability versus Design in TPMS Scaffolds
title Permeability versus Design in TPMS Scaffolds
title_full Permeability versus Design in TPMS Scaffolds
title_fullStr Permeability versus Design in TPMS Scaffolds
title_full_unstemmed Permeability versus Design in TPMS Scaffolds
title_short Permeability versus Design in TPMS Scaffolds
title_sort permeability versus design in tpms scaffolds
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6515433/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31013656
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma12081313
work_keys_str_mv AT castroapg permeabilityversusdesignintpmsscaffolds
AT pirest permeabilityversusdesignintpmsscaffolds
AT santosje permeabilityversusdesignintpmsscaffolds
AT gouveiabp permeabilityversusdesignintpmsscaffolds
AT fernandespr permeabilityversusdesignintpmsscaffolds