Advertisement

Impacts of dynamic degradation on the morphological and mechanical characterisation of porous magnesium scaffold

  • Amir Putra Md SaadEmail author
  • Akbar Teguh Prakoso
  • M. A. Sulong
  • Hasan Basri
  • Dian Agustin Wahjuningrum
  • Ardiyansyah SyahromEmail author
Original Paper
  • 82 Downloads

Abstract

This study employs a computational approach to analyse the impact of morphological changes on the structural properties of biodegradable porous Mg subjected to a dynamic immersion test for its application as a bone scaffold. Porous Mg was immersed in a dynamic immersion test for 24, 48, and 72 h. Twelve specimens were prepared and scanned using micro-CT and then reconstructed into a 3D model for finite element analysis. The structural properties from the numerical simulation were then compared to the experimental values. Correlations between morphological parameters, structural properties, and fracture type were then made. The relative losses were observed to be in agreement with relative mass loss done experimentally. The degradation rates determined using exact (degraded) surface area at particular immersion times were on average 20% higher than the degradation rates obtained using original surface area. The dynamic degradation has significantly impacted the morphological changes of porous Mg in volume fraction, surface area, and trabecular separation, which in turn affects its structural properties and increases the immersion time.

Keywords

Dynamic immersion test Finite element analyses Dynamic degradation Porous magnesium Morphological parameters 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was sponsored by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) via the Potential Academic Staff (PAS) Grant scheme (Q.J130000.2724.03K09). The authors would like to thank the Research Management Centre, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), for managing the project. Several authors of this present study are financially supported by the HIR-MOHE research grant initiative.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Angrisani N, Reifenrath J, Zimmermann F et al (2016) Biocompatibility and degradation of LAE442-based magnesium alloys after implantation of up to 3.5 years in a rabbit model. Acta Biomater 44:355–365.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTBIO.2016.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balla VK, Bodhak S, Bose S, Bandyopadhyay A (2010) Porous tantalum structures for bone implants: fabrication, mechanical and in vitro biological properties. Acta Biomater 6:3349–3359.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2010.01.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bigi A, Falini G, Foresti E et al (1993) Magnesium influence on hydroxyapatite crystallization. J Inorg Biochem 49:69–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-0134(93)80049-F CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bissinger O, Kirschke JS, Probst FA et al (2016) Micro-CT vs. whole body multirow detector CT for analysing bone regeneration in an animal model. PLoS ONE 11:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166540 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bobe K, Willbold E, Morgenthal I et al (2013) In vitro and in vivo evaluation of biodegradable, open-porous scaffolds made of sintered magnesium W4 short fibres. Acta Biomater 9:8611–8623.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2013.03.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boccaccio A, Ballini A, Pappalettere C et al (2010) Finite element method (FEM), mechanobiology and biomimetic scaffolds in bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Sci 7:112–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bose S, Roy M, Bandyopadhyay A (2012) Recent advances in bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Trends Biotechnol 30:546–554.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2012.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castiglioni S, Cazzaniga A, Albisetti W, Maier JAM (2013) Magnesium and osteoporosis: current state of knowledge and future research directions. Nutrients 5:3022–3033.  https://doi.org/10.3390/nu5083022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng M, Wahafu T, Jiang G et al (2016) A novel open-porous magnesium scaffold with controllable microstructures and properties for bone regeneration. Sci Rep 6:24134.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dorozhkin SV (2014) Calcium orthophosphate coatings on magnesium and its biodegradable alloys. Acta Biomater 10:2919–2934.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2014.02.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enyedi B, Konyha L, Fazekas K (2005) Threshold procedures and image segmentation. In: 47th international symposium ELMAR, 2005. IEEE, pp 29–32Google Scholar
  12. Feyerabend F (2014) Biomaterials for bone regeneration. Woodhead Publishing Limited, SawstonGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischerauer SF, Kraus T, Wu X et al (2013) In vivo degradation performance of micro-arc-oxidized magnesium implants: a micro-CT study in rats. Acta Biomater 9:5411–5420.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTBIO.2012.09.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geng F, Tan L, Zhang B et al (2009) Study on beta-TCP coated porous Mg as a Bone tissue engineering scaffold material. J Mater Sci Technol 25:123–129Google Scholar
  15. Gibson LJ (1985) The mechanical behaviour of cancellous bone. J Biomech 18:317–328.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(85)90287-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gong T, Xie J, Liao J et al (2015) Nanomaterials and bone regeneration. Bone Res 3:15029.  https://doi.org/10.1038/boneres.2015.29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gu X, Zheng Y, Cheng Y et al (2009) In vitro corrosion and biocompatibility of binary magnesium alloys. Biomaterials 30:484–498.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.10.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gu XN, Zhou WR, Zheng YF et al (2010) Degradation and cytotoxicity of lotus-type porous pure magnesium as potential tissue engineering scaffold material. Mater Lett 64:1871–1874.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2010.06.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hedberg EL, Shih CK, Lemoine JJ et al (2005) In vitro degradation of porous poly(propylene fumarate)/poly(dl-lactic-co-glycolic acid) composite scaffolds. Biomaterials 26:3215–3225.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOMATERIALS.2004.09.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Helgason B, Perilli E, Schileo E et al (2008) Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: a literature review. Clin Biomech 23:135–146.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.08.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jasmawati N, Fatihhi S, Putra A et al (2017) Mg-based porous metals as cancellous bone analogous material: a review. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L J Mater Des Appl 231:544–556.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1464420715624449 Google Scholar
  22. Jiang G, He G (2014) A new approach to the fabrication of porous magnesium with well-controlled 3D pore structure for orthopedic applications. Mater Sci Eng, C 43:317–320.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2014.07.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Judex S, Boyd S, Qin Y-X et al (2003) Combining high-resolution micro-computed tomography with material composition to define the quality of bone tissue. Curr Osteoporos Rep 1:11–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-003-0003-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lacroix D, Planell JA, Prendergast PJ (2009) Computer-aided design and finite-element modelling of biomaterial scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 367:1993–2009.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2009.0024 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis G (2013) Properties of open-cell porous metals and alloys for orthopaedic applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med 24:2293–2325.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-013-4998-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu XS, Bevill G, Keaveny TM et al (2009) Micromechanical analyses of vertebral trabecular bone based on individual trabeculae segmentation of plates and rods. J Biomech 42:249–256.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.10.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Md Saad AP, Syahrom A (2018) Study of dynamic degradation behaviour of porous magnesium under physiological environment of human cancellous bone. Corros Sci 131:45–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2017.10.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Md. Saad AP, Jasmawati N, Harun MN et al (2016) Dynamic degradation of porous magnesium under a simulated environment of human cancellous bone. Corros Sci 112:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2016.08.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Md Saad AP, Abdul Rahim RA, Harun MN et al (2017) The influence of flow rates on the dynamic degradation behaviour of porous magnesium under a simulated environment of human cancellous bone. Mater Des 122:268–279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Milan J, Planell JA, Lacroix D (2009) Biomaterials computational modelling of the mechanical environment of osteogenesis within a polylactic acid—calcium phosphate glass scaffold. Biomaterials 30:4219–4226.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.04.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mistry AS, Pham QP, Schouten C et al (2010) In vivo bone biocompatibility and degradation of porous fumarate-based polymer/alumoxane nanocomposites for bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res—Part A 92:451–462.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.32371 Google Scholar
  32. Morgan EF, Keaveny TM (2001) Dependence of yield strain of human trabecular bone on anatomic site. J Biomech 34:569–577.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(01)00011-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perilli E, Baleani M, Öhman C et al (2008) Dependence of mechanical compressive strength on local variations in microarchitecture in cancellous bone of proximal human femur. J Biomech 41:438–446.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Planell JA, Lacroix D, Olivares AL (2009) Biomaterials finite element study of scaffold architecture design and culture conditions for tissue engineering. 30:6142–6149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.07.041 Google Scholar
  35. Renders GAP, Mulder L, van Ruijven LJ, van Eijden TMGJ (2007) Porosity of human mandibular condylar bone. J Anat 210:239–248.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2007.00693.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shi X, Wang X, Niebur GL (2009) Effects of loading orientation on the morphology of the predicted yielded regions in trabecular bone. Ann Biomed Eng 37:354–362.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-008-9619-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shimko DA, Shimko VF, Sander EA et al (2005) Effect of porosity on the fluid flow characteristics and mechanical properties of tantalum scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 73B:315–324.  https://doi.org/10.1002/JBM.B.30229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Snyder BD, Piazza S, Edwards WT, Hayes WC (1993) Role of trabecular morphology in the etiology of age-related vertebral fractures. Calcif Tissue Int 53:14–22.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01673396 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Staiger MP, Pietak AM, Huadmai J, Dias G (2006) Magnesium and its alloys as orthopedic biomaterials: a review. Biomaterials 27:1728–1734.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sulong MA, Belova IV, Boccaccini AR et al (2016) A model of the mechanical degradation of foam replicated scaffolds. J Mater Sci 51:3824–3835.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-015-9701-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Syahrom A, Abdul Kadir MR, Abdullah J, Öchsner A (2011) Mechanical and microarchitectural analyses of cancellous bone through experiment and computer simulation. Med Biol Eng Comput 49:1393–1403.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-011-0833-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Syahrom A, Abdul Kadir MR, Abdullah J, Öchsner A (2013) Permeability studies of artificial and natural cancellous bone structures. Med Eng Phys 35:792–799.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2012.08.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tamburaci S, Tihminlioglu F (2018) Biosilica incorporated 3D porous scaffolds for bone tissue engineering applications. Mater Sci Eng, C 91:274–291.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.05.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Uth N, Mueller J, Smucker B, Yousefi A-M (2017) Validation of scaffold design optimization in bone tissue engineering: finite element modeling versus designed experiments. Biofabrication 9:015023.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/9/1/015023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vesenjak M, Sulong MA, Krstulović-Opara L et al (2016) Dynamic compression of aluminium foam derived from infiltration casting of salt dough. Mech Mater 93:96–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2015.10.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vormann J (2003) Magnesium: nutrition and metabolism. Mol Aspects Med 24:27–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-2997(02)00089-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams AFO, McCullough MBA (2015) Micro-computed tomography to finite element analysis of in vivo biodegradable magnesium-alloy screw and surrounding bone in rabbit femurs. In: Volume 14: emerging technologies; safety engineering and risk analysis; materials: genetics to structures. ASME, pp. V014T11A035; 9 pages.  https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2015-52790
  48. Witte F, Ulrich H, Palm C, Willbold E (2007a) Biodegradable magnesium scaffolds: part II: peri-implant bone remodeling. J Biomed Mater Res A 81:757–765.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.31293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Witte F, Ulrich H, Rudert M, Willbold E (2007b) Biodegradable magnesium scaffolds: part 1: appropriate inflammatory response. J Biomed Mater Res A 81:748–756.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.31170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Witte F, Hort N, Vogt C et al (2008) Degradable biomaterials based on magnesium corrosion. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci 12:63–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cossms.2009.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yazdimamaghani M, Razavi M, Vashaee D, Tayebi L (2015) Surface modification of biodegradable porous Mg bone scaffold using polycaprolactone/bioactive glass composite. Mater Sci Eng, C 49:436–444.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2015.01.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yu Y, Lu H, Sun J (2018) Long-term in vivo evolution of high-purity Mg screw degradation—Local and systemic effects of Mg degradation products. Acta Biomater 71:215–224.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTBIO.2018.02.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang X, Li X-W, Li J-G, Sun X-D (2014) Preparation and mechanical property of a novel 3D porous magnesium scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 42:362–367.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2014.05.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zheng YF, Gu XN, Witte F (2014) Biodegradable metals. Mater Sci Eng R Reports 77:1–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mser.2014.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Applied Mechanics and Design, School of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)Johor BahruMalaysia
  2. 2.Medical Devices and Technology Centre (MEDITEC), Institute of Human Centred and Engineering (iHumEn)Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)Johor BahruMalaysia
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversitas SriwijayaPalembangIndonesia
  4. 4.Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental MedicineUniversitas AirlanggaSurabayaIndonesia

Personalised recommendations