Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 51, Issue 8, pp 3824–3835 | Cite as

A model of the mechanical degradation of foam replicated scaffolds

  • M. A. SulongEmail author
  • I. V. Belova
  • A. R. Boccaccini
  • G. E. Murch
  • T. Fiedler
Original Paper


Tissue engineering scaffolds are implants that actively support tissue growth whilst providing mechanical support. For optimum functionality, they are designed to slowly dissolve in vivo so that no foreign material remains permanently implanted inside the body. The current study uses a simple degradation model that estimates the change of scaffold geometry due to surface erosion. This model is applied on scaffolds that have been manufactured using the foam replication method. In order to capture their complex geometry, micro-computed tomography scans of samples are obtained. Their change in geometry and degradation of mechanical properties is evaluated using computational analysis. The present investigation found that the mechanical properties such as the quasi-elastic gradient, 0.2 % offset yield stress and the plateau stress are decreased systematically over a 10-week period of immersion time. Deformation analysis on the titania foam scaffold is performed by means of the deformed model obtained from finite element calculations.


Simulated Body Fluid Immersion Time Bioactive Glass Elastic Gradient Tissue Engineering Scaffold 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was supported by the Australian Research Council through its Discovery Project DP130101377 “Structural design of third generation biomaterials”.


  1. 1.
    Hench LL, Polak JM (2002) Third-generation biomedical materials. Science 295(5557):1014–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eqtesadi S, Motealleh A, Miranda P, Pajares A, Lemos A, Ferreira JMF (2014) Robocasting of 45S5 bioactive glass scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Eur Ceram Soc 34(1):107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ang TH, Sultana FSA, Hutmacher DW, Wong YS, Fuh JYH, Mo XM, Loh HT, Burdet E, Teoh S-H (2002) Fabrication of 3D chitosan–hydroxyapatite scaffolds using a robotic dispensing system. Mater Sci Eng C 20(1):35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pfister A, Landers R, Laib A, Hübner U, Schmelzeisen R, Mülhaupt R (2004) Biofunctional rapid prototyping for tissue-engineering applications: 3D bioplotting versus 3D printing. J Polym Sci A 42(3):624–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Midha S, Kim TB, van den Bergh W, Lee PD, Jones JR, Mitchell CA (2013) Preconditioned 70S30C bioactive glass foams promote osteogenesis in vivo. Acta Biomater 9(11):9169–9182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen QZ, Boccaccini AR (2006) Poly (D, L-lactic acid) coated 45S5 Bioglass®-based scaffolds: processing and characterization. J Biomed Mater Res A 77(3):445–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fu Q, Rahaman MN, Bal BS, Brown RF, Day DE (2008) Mechanical and in vitro performance of 13–93 bioactive glass scaffolds prepared by a polymer foam replication technique. Acta Biomater 4(6):1854–1864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hutmacher DW, Sittinger M, Risbud MV (2004) Scaffold-based tissue engineering: rationale for computer-aided design and solid free-form fabrication systems. Trends Biotechnol 22(7):354–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yeong W-Y, Chua C-K, Leong K-F, Chandrasekaran M (2004) Rapid prototyping in tissue engineering: challenges and potential. Trends Biotechnol 22(12):643–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fu Q, Saiz E, Tomsia AP (2011) Bioinspired strong and highly porous glass scaffolds. Adv Funct Mater 21(6):1058–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Menon A (2009) Sintering Additives for Nanocrystalline Titania and Processing of Porous Bone Tissue Engineering Scaffolds. University of Central Florida Orlando, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Uchida M, Kim H-M, Kokubo T, Fujibayashi S, Nakamura T (2003) Structural dependence of apatite formation on titania gels in a simulated body fluid. J Biomed Mater Res A 64A(1):164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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):1245–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones JR, Ehrenfried LM, Hench LL (2006) Optimising bioactive glass scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 27(7):964–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karl S, Somers AV (1963) Method of making porous ceramic articles. Google Patents, 1963Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen QZ, Thompson ID, Boccaccini AR (2006) 45S5 Bioglass®-derived glass–ceramic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 27(11):2414–2425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fu Q, Rahaman MN, Bal BS, Bonewald LF, Kuroki K, Brown RF (2010) Silicate, borosilicate, and borate bioactive glass scaffolds with controllable degradation rate for bone tissue engineering applications. II. In vitro and in vivo biological evaluation. J Biomed Mater Res A 95(1):172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fu H, Fu Q, Zhou N, Huang W, Rahaman MN, Wang D, Liu X (2009) In vitro evaluation of borate-based bioactive glass scaffolds prepared by a polymer foam replication method. Mater Sci Eng C 29(7):2275–2281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meng D, Rath SN, Mordan N, Salih V, Kneser U, Boccaccini AR (2011) In vitro evaluation of 45S5 Bioglass®-derived glass-ceramic scaffolds coated with carbon nanotubes. J Biomed Mater Res A 99(3):435–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fiedler T, Fisher M, Roether JA, Belova IV, Samtleben T, Bernthaler T, Murch GE, Boccaccini AR (2014) Strengthening mechanism of PDLLA coated titania foam. Mech Mater 69(1):35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Torio-Padron N, Paul D, von Elverfeldt D, Stark GB, Huotari AM (2011) Resorption rate assessment of adipose tissue-engineered constructs by intravital magnetic resonance imaging. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 64(1):117–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kłodowski K, Kamiński J, Nowicka K, Tarasiuk J, Wroński S, Świętek M, Błażewicz M, Figiel H, Turek K, Szponder T (2014) Micro-imaging of implanted scaffolds using combined MRI and micro-CT. Comput Med Imaging Graph 38(6):458–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Han X, Pan J (2009) A model for simultaneous crystallisation and biodegradation of biodegradable polymers. Biomaterials 30(3):423–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang Y, Pan J, Han X, Sinka C, Ding L (2008) A phenomenological model for the degradation of biodegradable polymers. Biomaterials 29(23):3393–3401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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):3964–3972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sanz-Herrera JA, Boccaccini AR (2011) Modelling bioactivity and degradation of bioactive glass based tissue engineering scaffolds. Int J Solids Struct 48(2):257–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Winkelstein BA (2012) Orthopaedic biomechanics. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Göpferich A (1996) Mechanisms of polymer degradation and erosion. Biomaterials 17(2):103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Attawia MA, Herbert KM, Uhrich KE, Langer R, Laurencin CT (1999) Proliferation, morphology, and protein expression by osteoblasts cultured on poly (anhydride-co-imides). J Biomed Mater Res 48(3):322–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Middleton JC, Tipton AJ (2000) Synthetic biodegradable polymers as orthopedic devices. Biomaterials 21(23):2335–2346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hutmacher DW (2000) Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials 21(24):2529–2543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wu L, Ding J (2004) In vitro degradation of three-dimensional porous poly(D, L-lactide-co-glycolide) scaffolds for tissue engineering. Biomaterials 25(27):5821–5830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Caty O, Maire E, Youssef S, Bouchet R (2008) Modeling the properties of closed-cell cellular materials from tomography images using finite shell elements. Acta Mater 56(19):5524–5534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Meth 9(7):671–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kotov NA, Meldrum FC, Fendler JH (1994) Monoparticulate layers of titanium dioxide nanocrystallites with controllable interparticle distances. J Phys Chem 98(36):8827–8830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Veyhl C, Belova IV, Murch GE, Öchsner A, Fiedler T (2010) On the mesh dependence of non-linear mechanical finite element analysis. Finite Elem Anal Des 46(5):371–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tekkaya AE (2000) Relationship between Vickers Hardness and Yield Stress for Cold Formed Materials. Steel Res, 71(1)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tabor D (1951) The hardness of metals, vol 10. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Li Z, Qu Y, Zhang X, Yang B (2009) Bioactive nano-titania ceramics with biomechanical compatibility prepared by doping with piezoelectric BaTiO3. Acta Biomater 5(6):2189–2195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kalita SJ, Qiu S, Verma S (2008) A quantitative study of the calcination and sintering of nanocrystalline titanium dioxide and its flexural strength properties. Mater Chem Phys 109(2–3):392–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    I. Standard, ISO 13314:2011(E) (2011) Mechanical testing of metals—ductility testing—compression test for porous and cellular metals. Ref Number ISO 13314(13314):1–7Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    San Marchi C, Mortensen A (2001) Deformation of open-cell aluminum foam. Acta Mater 49(19):3959–3969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Conde Y, Despois J, Goodall R, Marmottant A, Salvo L, San Marchi C, Mortensen A (2006) Replication processing of highly porous materials. Adv Eng Mater 8(9):795–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rezwan K, Chen QZ, Blaker JJ, Boccaccini AR (2006) Biodegradable and bioactive porous polymer/inorganic composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 27(18):3413–3431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Torres FG, Nazhat SN, Sheikh SH, Fadzullah SSM, Maquet V, Boccaccini AR (2007) Mechanical properties and bioactivity of porous PLGA/TiO2 nanoparticle-filled composites for tissue engineering scaffolds. Compos Sci Technol 67(6):1139–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Baker SC, Rohman G, Southgate J, Cameron NR (2009) The relationship between the mechanical properties and cell behaviour on PLGA and PCL scaffolds for bladder tissue engineering. Biomaterials 30(7):1321–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Badiche X, Forest S, Guibert T, Bienvenu Y, Bartout J-D, Ienny P, et al (2000) Mechanical properties and non-homogeneous deformation of open-cell nickel foams: application of the mechanics of cellular solids and of porous materials. Mater Sci Eng A 289:276–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Niebur GL, Feldstein MJ, Yuen JC, Chen TJ, Keaveny TM (2000) High-resolution finite element models with tissue strength asymmetry accurately predict failure of trabecular bone. J Biomech 33:1575–1583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhou J, Shrotriya P, Soboyejo WO (2004) Mechanisms and mechanics of compressive deformation in open-cell Al foams. Mech Mater 36:781–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Mass and Thermal Transport in Engineering Materials, School of EngineeringThe University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia
  2. 2.Institute of Biomaterials, Department of Materials Science and EngineeringUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany
  3. 3.Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaSkudaiMalaysia

Personalised recommendations