Advertisement

A porous polymeric–hydroxyapatite scaffold used for femur fractures treatment: fabrication, analysis, and simulation

  • Saeid Esmaeili
  • Hossein Akbari Aghdam
  • Mehdi Motififard
  • Saeed Saber-Samandari
  • Amir Hussein Montazeran
  • Mohammad Bigonah
  • Erfan Sheikhbahaei
  • Amirsalar KhandanEmail author
Original Article • HIP - BIOMATERIALS
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

Background

One of the most common fractures in the skeleton happens in the femur. One of the important reasons for this fracture is because it is the longest bone in the body and osteoporosis affect this part a lot. The geometric complexity and anisotropy properties of this bone have received a lot of attention in the orthopedic field.

Methods

In this research, a femur designed using 3D printing machine using the middle part of the hip made of polylactic acid–hydroxyapatite (PLA–HA) nanocomposite containing 0, 5, 10, 15, and 25 wt% of ceramic nanoparticle. Three different types of loadings, including centralized loading, full-scale, and partially loaded, were applied to the designed femur bone. The finite element analysis was used to analyze biomechanical components.

Results

The results of the analysis showed that it is possible to use the porous scaffold model for replacement in the femur having proper strength and mechanical stability. Stress–strain analysis on femoral implant with biometric HA and PLA after modeling was performed using the finite element method under static conditions in Abaqus software.

Conclusion

Three scaffold structures, i.e., mono-, hybrid, and zonal structures, that can be fabricated using current bioprinting techniques are also discussed with respect to scaffold design.

Keywords

Bone Hydroxyapatite Finite elements analysis Static and dynamic analysis 3D printing Femur Fracture 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Amirkabir University Technology for their kind support throughout this research and proofreading the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conflict of interests.

Ethical approval

This study started after receiving its scientific ethical approval from Isfahan University of Medical Sciences that registered inquiry and funding under the No. 198091 and IR.MUI.RESEARCH.REC.1398.218 (clinical research section).

References

  1. 1.
    Nareliya R, Kumar V (2011) Biomechanical analysis of human femur bone. Int J Eng Sci Technol 3(4):3090–3094Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lengsfeld M, Kaminsky J, Merz B, Franke RP (1996) Sensitivity of femoral strain pattern analyses to resultant and muscle forces at the hip joint. Med Eng Phys 18(1):70–78Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saber-Samandari S, Gross KA (2009) Micromechanical properties of single crystal hydroxyapatite by nanoindentation. Acta Biomater 5(6):2206–2212Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fu Q, Saiz E, Rahaman MN, Tomsia AP (2011) Bioactive glass scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: state of the art and future perspectives. Mater Sci Eng C 31(7):1245–1256Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giannoudis PV, Dinopoulos H, Tsiridis E (2005) Bone substitutes: an update. Injury 36(3):S20–S27Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zaky SH, Lee KW, Gao J, Jensen A, Verdelis K, Wang Y et al (2017) Poly (glycerol sebacate) elastomer supports bone regeneration by its mechanical properties being closer to osteoid tissue rather than to mature bone. Acta Biomater 54:95–106Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adachi T, Osako Y, Tanaka M, Hojo M, Hollister SJ (2006) Framework for optimal design of porous scaffold microstructure by computational simulation of bone regeneration. Biomaterials 27(21):3964–3972Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Imani M, Gooudarzi AM, Rabiee SM, Dardel M (2016) Theoretical framework for evaluating the mechanical properties of composite bone scaffolds. In: The 5th international conference on composites: characterization, fabrication and application (CCFA-5), Tehran, Iran, 20–21 Dec 2016Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu X, Rahaman MN, Hilmas GE, Bal BS (2013) Mechanical properties of bioactive glass (13-93) scaffolds fabricated by robotic deposition for structural bone repair. Acta Biomater 9(6):7025–7034Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Offeddu GS, Ashworth JC, Cameron RE, Oyen ML (2015) Multi-scale mechanical response of freeze-dried collagen scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 42:19–25Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nikpour MR, Rabiee SM, Jahanshahi M (2012) Synthesis and characterization of hydroxyapatite/chitosan nanocomposite materials for medical engineering applications. Compos B Eng 43(4):1881–1886Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khandan A, Ozada N, Saber-Samandari S, Nejad MG (2018) On the mechanical and biological properties of bredigite-magnetite (Ca7MgSi4O16–Fe3O4) nanocomposite scaffolds. Ceram Int 44(3):3141–3148Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tagliabue S, Rossi E, Baino F, Vitale-Brovarone C, Gastaldi D, Vena P (2017) Micro-CT based finite element models for elastic properties of glass–ceramic scaffolds. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 65:248–255Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang JP (2013) Image-based procedure for biostructure modeling. J Nanomech Micromech 4(3):B4013001Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pérez-Ramírez Ú, López-Orive JJ, Arana E, Salmerón-Sánchez M, Moratal D (2015) Micro-computed tomography image-based evaluation of 3d anisotropy degree of polymer scaffolds. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 18(4):446–455Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Madi K, Tozzi G, Zhang QH, Tong J, Cossey A, Au A et al (2013) Computation of full-field displacements in a scaffold implant using digital volume correlation and finite element analysis. Med Eng Phys 35(9):1298–1312Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sandino C, Lacroix D (2011) A dynamical study of the mechanical stimuli and tissue differentiation within a CaP scaffold based on micro-CT finite element models. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 10(4):565–576Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sulong MA, Belova IV, Boccaccini AR, Murch GE, Fiedler T (2016) A model of the mechanical degradation of foam replicated scaffolds. J Mater Sci 51(8):3824–3835Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aghdam HA, Sheikhbahaei E, Hajihashemi H, Kazemi D, Andalib A (2018) The impacts of internal versus external fixation for tibial fractures with simultaneous acute compartment syndrome. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 29:183–187Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salami MA, Kaveian F, Rafienia M, Saber-Samandari S, Khandan A, Naeimi M (2017) Electrospun polycaprolactone/lignin-based nanocomposite as a novel tissue scaffold for biomedical applications. J Med Signals Sens 7(4):228Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Montazeran AH, Saber Samandari S, Khandan A (2018) Artificial intelligence investigation of three silicates bioceramics-magnetite bio-nanocomposite: hyperthermia and biomedical applications. Nanomed J 5(3):163–171Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Joneidi Yekta H, Shahali M, Khorshidi S, Rezaei S, Montazeran AH, Samandari SS et al (2018) Mathematically and experimentally defined porous bone scaffold produced for bone substitute application. Nanomed J 5(4):227–234Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sahmani S, Shahali M, Khandan A, Saber-Samandari S, Aghdam MM (2018) Analytical and experimental analyses for mechanical and biological characteristics of novel nanoclay bio-nanocomposite scaffolds fabricated via space holder technique. Appl Clay Sci 165:112–123Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sahmani S, Saber-Samandari S, Shahali M, Yekta HJ, Aghadavoudi F, Montazeran AH et al (2018) Mechanical and biological performance of axially loaded novel bio-nanocomposite sandwich plate-type implant coated by biological polymer thin film. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 88:238–250Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cristofolini L, Viceconti M (2000) Mechanical validation of whole bone composite tibia models. J Biomech 33(3):279–288Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maghsoudlou MA, Isfahani RB, Saber-Samandari S, Sadighi M (2019) Effect of interphase, curvature and agglomeration of SWCNTs on mechanical properties of polymer-based nanocomposites: experimental and numerical investigations. Compos Part B Eng 175:107119Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ayatollahi MR, Moghimi Monfared R, Barbaz Isfahani R (2019) Experimental investigation on tribological properties of carbon fabric composites: effects of carbon nanotubes and nano-silica. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L J Mater Des Appl 233(5):874–884Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Monfared RM, Ayatollahi MR, Isfahani RB (2018) Synergistic effects of hybrid MWCNT/nanosilica on the tensile and tribological properties of woven carbon fabric epoxy composites. Theor Appl Fract Mech 96:272–284Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ayatollahi MR, Barbaz Isfahani R, Moghimi Monfared R (2017) Effects of multi-walled carbon nanotube and nanosilica on tensile properties of woven carbon fabric-reinforced epoxy composites fabricated using VARIM. J Compos Mater 51(30):4177–4188Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Khandan A, Ozada N (2017) Bredigite-Magnetite (Ca7MgSi4O16–Fe3O4) nanoparticles: a study on their magnetic properties. J Alloys Compd 726:729–736Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Najafinezhad A, Abdellahi M, Saber-Samandari S, Ghayour H, Khandan A (2018) Hydroxyapatite-M-type strontium hexaferrite: a new composite for hyperthermia applications. J Alloys Compd 734:290–300Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sahmani S, Khandan A, Saber-Samandari S, Aghdam MM (2018) Nonlinear bending and instability analysis of bioceramics composed with magnetite nanoparticles: fabrication, characterization, and simulation. Ceram Int 44(8):9540–9549Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sahmani S, Khandan A, Saber-Samandari S, Aghdam MM (2018) Vibrations of beam-type implants made of 3D printed bredigite-magnetite bio-nanocomposite scaffolds under axial compression: application, communication and simulation. Ceram Int 44(10):11282–11291Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Khandan A, Karamian E, Bonakdarchian M (2014) Mechanochemical synthesis evaluation of nanocrystalline bone-derived bioceramic powder using for bone tissue engineering. Dent Hypotheses 5(4):155Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Heydary HA, Karamian E, Poorazizi E, Khandan A, Heydaripour J (2015) A novel nano-fiber of Iranian gum tragacanth-polyvinyl alcohol/nanoclay composite for wound healing applications. Procedia Mater Sci 11:176–182Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Heydary HA, Karamian E, Poorazizi E, Heydaripour J, Khandan A (2015) Electrospun of polymer/bioceramic nanocomposite as a new soft tissue for biomedical applications. J Asian Ceram Soc 3(4):417–425Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Abdellahi M, Najafinezhad A, Ghayour H, Saber-Samandari S, Khandan A (2017) Preparing diopside nanoparticle scaffolds via space holder method: simulation of the compressive strength and porosity. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 72:171–181Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ghayour H, Abdellahi M, Nejad MG, Khandan A, Saber-Samandari S (2018) Study of the effect of the Zn2+ content on the anisotropy and specific absorption rate of the cobalt ferrite: the application of Co1−xZnxFe2O4 ferrite for magnetic hyperthermia. J Aust Ceram Soc 54(2):223–230Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kordjamshidi A, Saber-Samandari S, Nejad MG, Khandan A (2019) Preparation of novel porous calcium silicate scaffold loaded by celecoxib drug using freeze drying technique: fabrication, characterization and simulation. Ceram Int 45(11):14126–14135Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Esmaeili S, Shahali M, Kordjamshidi A, Torkpoor Z, Namdari F, Samandari SS et al (2019) An artificial blood vessel fabricated by 3D printing for pharmaceutical application. Nanomed J 6(3):183–194Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sahmani S, Shahali M, Nejad MG, Khandan A, Aghdam MM, Saber-Samandari S (2019) Effect of copper oxide nanoparticles on electrical conductivity and cell viability of calcium phosphate scaffolds with improved mechanical strength for bone tissue engineering. Eur Phys J Plus 134(1):7Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sadeghpour A, Mansour R, Aghdam HA, Goldust M (2011) Comparison of trans patellar approach and medial parapatellar tendon approach in tibial intramedullary nailing for treatment of tibial fractures. J Pak Med Assoc 61(6):530Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rouhani A, Elmi A, Aghdam HA, Panahi F, Ghafari YD (2012) The role of fibular fixation in the treatment of tibia diaphysis distal third fractures. Orthopaed Traumatol Surg Res 98(8):868–872Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Safari MB, Tabrizi A, Hassani E, Aghdam HA, Javad M (2017) Painful scoliosis secondary to posterior rib osteoid osteoma: a case report and review of literature. J Orthop Spine Trauma 3(1):e4903Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Farazin A, Akbari Aghdam H, Motififard M, Aghdavoudi F, Kordjamshidi A, Saber-Samandari S, Esmaeili S, Khandan A (2019) A polycaprolactone bio-nanocomposite bone substitute fabricated for femoral fracture approaches: molecular dynamic and micro-mechanical investigation. J Nanoanal.  https://doi.org/10.22034/jna.2019.584848.1134 Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Aghadavoudi F, Golestanian H, Tadi Beni Y (2018) Investigating the effects of CNT aspect ratio and agglomeration on elastic constants of crosslinked polymer nanocomposite using multiscale modeling. Polym Compos 39(12):4513–4523Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saeid Esmaeili
    • 1
  • Hossein Akbari Aghdam
    • 2
  • Mehdi Motififard
    • 2
  • Saeed Saber-Samandari
    • 1
  • Amir Hussein Montazeran
    • 1
  • Mohammad Bigonah
    • 3
  • Erfan Sheikhbahaei
    • 4
  • Amirsalar Khandan
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.New Technologies Research CenterAmirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic Surgery, School of MedicineIsfahan University of Medical SciencesIsfahanIran
  3. 3.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentIran University of Science and TechnologyTehranIran
  4. 4.Student Research Committee, School of MedicineIsfahan University of Medical SciencesIsfahanIran

Personalised recommendations