Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative study of oxygen diffusion in tissue engineering scaffolds

  • Published:
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Tissue engineering scaffolds are designed to support tissue self-healing within physiological environments by promoting the attachment, growth and differentiation of relevant cells. Newly formed tissue must be supplied with sufficient levels of oxygen to prevent necrosis. Oxygen diffusion is the major transport mechanism before vascularization is completed and oxygen is predominantly supplied via blood vessels. The present study compares different designs for scaffolds in the context of their oxygen diffusion ability. In all cases, oxygen diffusion is confined to the scaffold pores that are assumed to be completely occupied by newly formed tissue. The solid phase of the scaffolds acts as diffusion barrier that locally inhibits oxygen diffusion, i.e. no oxygen passes through the scaffold material. As a result, the oxygen diffusivity is determined by the scaffold porosity and pore architecture. Lattice Monte Carlo simulations are performed to compare the normalized oxygen diffusivities in scaffolds obtained by the foam replication (FR) method, robocasting and sol–gel foaming. Scaffolds made by the FR method were found to have the highest oxygen diffusivity due to their high porosity and interconnected pores. These structures enable the best oxygen supply for newly formed tissue among the scaffold types considered according to the present numerical predictions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hench LL, Polak JM. Third-generation biomedical materials. Science. 2002;295:1014–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hutmacher DW, Schantz JT, Lam CXF, Tan KC, Lim TC. State of the art and future directions of scaffold-based bone engineering from a biomaterials perspective. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2007;1:245–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ratner BD, Hoffman AS, Schoen FJ, Lemons JE. Biomaterials science: an introduction to materials in medicine. Amsterdam: Academic Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rezwan K, Chen QZ, Blaker JJ, Boccaccini AR. Biodegradable and bioactive porous polymer/inorganic composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2006;27:3413–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Karande TS. Effect of scaffold architecture on diffusion of oxygen in tissue engineering constructs. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin; 2007.

  6. Karande TS, Ong JL, Agrawal CM. Diffusion in musculoskeletal tissue engineering scaffolds: design issues related to porosity, permeability, architecture, and nutrient mixing. Ann Biomed Eng. 2004;32:1728–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kang TY, Kang HW, Hwang CM, Leel SJ, Park J, Yoo JJ, et al. The realistic prediction of oxygen transport in a tissue-engineered scaffold by introducing time-varying effective diffusion coefficients. Acta Biomater. 2011;7:3345–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Croll TI, Gentz S, Mueller K, Davidson M, O’Connor AJ, Stevens GW, et al. Modelling oxygen diffusion and cell growth in a porous, vascularizing scaffold for soft tissue engineering applications. Chem Eng Sci. 2005;60:4924–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Santos MI, Reis RL. Vascularization in bone tissue engineering: physiology, current strategies, major hurdles and future challenges. Macromol Biosci. 2010;10:12–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gorustovich AA, Roether JA, Boccaccini AR. Effect of bioactive glasses on angiogenesis: in-vitro and in-vivo evidence. A review. Tissue Eng Part B. 2010;16:199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chung CA, Yang CW, Chen CW. Analysis of cell growth and diffusion in a scaffold for cartilage tissue engineering. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2006;94:1138–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shanbhag S, Lee JW, Kotov N. Diffusion in three-dimensionally ordered scaffolds with inverted colloidal crystal geometry. Biomaterials. 2005;26:5581–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fiedler T, Murch GE, Belova IV. Solving complex thermal and mass transport problems with the Lattice Monte Carlo method. Cairns, QLD; 2010. p. 1476–81.

  14. Veyhl C, Fiedler T, Andersen O, Meinert J, Bernthaler T, Belova IV, et al. On the thermal conductivity of sintered metallic fibre structures. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2012;55:2440–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fiedler T, Belova IV, Murch GE. Theoretical and Lattice Monte Carlo analyses on thermal conduction in cellular metals. Comput Mater Sci. 2010;50:503–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Eqtesadi S, Motealleh A, Miranda P, Pajares A, Lemos A, Ferreira JMF. Robocasting of 45S5 bioactive glass scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2014;34:107–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Midha S, Kim TB, van den Bergh W, Lee PD, Jones JR, Mitchell CA. Preconditioned 70S30C bioactive glass foams promote osteogenesis in vivo. Acta Biomater. 2013;9:9169–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jones JR. Review of bioactive glass: from Hench to hybrids. Acta Biomater. 2013;9:4457–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Novak S, Druce J, Chen QZ, Boccaccini AR. TiO2 foams with poly(d, l-lactic acid) (PDLLA) and PDLLA/Bioglass coatings for bone tissue engineering scaffolds. J Mater Sci. 2009;44:1442–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Longmuir IS, Bourke A. The measurement of the diffusion of oxygen through respiring tissue. Biochem J. 1960;76(2):225–9.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Zaritzky NE, Bevilacqua AE. Oxygen diffusion in meat tissues. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 1988;31:923–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Evans NTS, Naylor PFD, Quinton TH. The diffusion coefficient of oxygen in respiring kidney and tumour tissue. Respir Physiol. 1981;43:179–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nogueira RA, Grandini CR. Oxygen diffusion in Ti-20Mo alloys, used as biomaterial, measured by mechanical spectroscopy. Defect Diffus Forum. 2012;326–328:702–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cava D, Gimenez E, Gavara R, Lagaron JM. Comparative performance and barrier properties of biodegradable thermoplastics and nanobiocomposites versus pet for food packaging applications. J Plast Film Sheeting. 2006;22:265–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jones JR, Ehrenfried LM, Hench LL. Optimising bioactive glass scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2006;27:964–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. German RM. Particle packing characteristics. Princeton: Metal Powder Industries Federation; 1989.

  27. Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9:671–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Doube M, Kłosowski MM, Arganda-Carreras I, Cordeliéres F, Dougherty RP, Jackson J, et al. BoneJ: free and extensible bone image analysis in ImageJ. Bone. 2010;47:1076–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fiedler T, Fisher M, Roether JA, Belova IV, Samtleben T, Bernthaler T, et al. Strengthening mechanism of PDLLA coated titania foam. Mech Mater. 2014;69:35–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors Dr Fiedler, Prof. Murch and Prof. Boccaccini want to acknowledge financial support by the Australian Research Council (ARC) in the framework of the Discovery Project DP130101377.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2287, Australia

    T. Fiedler, I. V. Belova & G. E. Murch

  2. Department of Materials, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London, SW7 2AZ, UK

    G. Poologasundarampillai & J. R. Jones

  3. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Institute of Polymer Materials, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91058, Erlangen, Germany

    J. A. Roether

  4. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Institute of Biomaterials, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91058, Erlangen, Germany

    A. R. Boccaccini

Authors
  1. T. Fiedler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I. V. Belova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. E. Murch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. Poologasundarampillai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. R. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. A. Roether
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. R. Boccaccini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Fiedler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fiedler, T., Belova, I.V., Murch, G.E. et al. A comparative study of oxygen diffusion in tissue engineering scaffolds. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 25, 2573–2578 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-014-5264-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-014-5264-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation