Micro-computed tomography characterization of tissue engineering scaffolds: effects of pixel size and rotation step
Quantitative assessment of micro-structure of materials is of key importance in many fields including tissue engineering, biology, and dentistry. Micro-computed tomography (µ-CT) is an intensively used non-destructive technique. However, the acquisition parameters such as pixel size and rotation step may have significant effects on the obtained results. In this study, a set of tissue engineering scaffolds including examples of natural and synthetic polymers, and ceramics were analyzed. We comprehensively compared the quantitative results of µ-CT characterization using 15 acquisition scenarios that differ in the combination of the pixel size and rotation step. The results showed that the acquisition parameters could statistically significantly affect the quantified mean porosity, mean pore size, and mean wall thickness of the scaffolds. The effects are also practically important since the differences can be as high as 24% regarding the mean porosity in average, and 19.5 h and 166 GB regarding the characterization time and data storage per sample with a relatively small volume. This study showed in a quantitative manner the effects of such a wide range of acquisition scenarios on the final data, as well as the characterization time and data storage per sample. Herein, a clear picture of the effects of the pixel size and rotation step on the results is provided which can notably be useful to refine the practice of µ-CT characterization of scaffolds and economize the related resources.
This article is a result of the project FROnTHERA (NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000023), supported by Norte Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). IFC thanks the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) for the Ph.D. scholarship (SFRH/BD/99555/2014). JMO also thanks the FCT for the funds provided under the program Investigador FCT 2012 and 2015 (IF/00423/2012 and IF/01285/2015).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 7.Müller R, Matter S, Neuenschwander P, Suter U, Rüegsegger P editors. 3D micro-tomographic imaging and quantitative morphometry for the nondestructive evaluation of porous biomaterials. MRS Proceedings; 1996: Cambridge Univ Press.Google Scholar
- 15.Gao X, Tay FR,oGutmann JL, Fan W, Xu T, Fan B. Micro-CT evaluation of apical delta morphologies in human teeth. Sci Rep. 2016;6:36501. doi: 10.1038/srep36501.
- 19.Zhu S, Zhu Q, Liu X, Yang W, Jian Y, Zhou X et al. Three-dimensional reconstruction of the microstructure of human acellular nerve allograft. Sci Rep. 2016;6:30694. doi: 10.1038/srep30694.
- 23.Gibson AL, Mingalone CKH, Foote AT, Uchimura T, Zhang M, Zeng L. Wnt7a inhibits IL-1β induced catabolic gene expression and prevents articular cartilage damage in experimental osteoarthritis. Sci Rep. 2017;7:41823. doi: 10.1038/srep41823.
- 28.Geng H, Todd NM, Devlin-Mullin A, Poologasundarampillai G, Kim TB, Madi K, et al. A correlative imaging based methodology for accurate quantitative assessment of bone formation in additive manufactured implants. J Mater Sci: Mater Med. 2016;27(6):1–9.Google Scholar
- 29.Xu L, Lv K, Zhang W, Zhang X, Jiang X, Zhang F. The healing of critical-size calvarial bone defects in rat with rhPDGF-BB, BMSCs, and β-TCP scaffolds. J Mater Sci: Mater Med. 2012;23(4):1073–84.Google Scholar
- 30.Wongsupa N, Nuntanaranont T, Kamolmattayakul S, Thuaksuban N. Assessment of bone regeneration of a tissue-engineered bone complex using human dental pulp stem cells/poly (ε-caprolactone)-biphasic calcium phosphate scaffold constructs in rabbit calvarial defects. J Mater Sci: Mater Med. 2017;28(5):77.Google Scholar
- 31.Liu G, Zhao L, Zhang W, Cui L, Liu W, Cao Y. Repair of goat tibial defects with bone marrow stromal cells and β-tricalcium phosphate. J Mater Sci: Mater Med. 2008;19(6):2367–76.Google Scholar
- 35.Webb SJ, Tu J, Cory E, Morgan V, Sah RL, Deheyn DD et al. Stress physiology and weapon integrity of intertidal mantis shrimp under future ocean conditions. Sci Rep. 2016;6:38637. doi: 10.1038/srep38637.
- 36.Lee SC, Kim JH, Lee SJ. Floating of the lobes of mosquito (Aedes togoi) larva for respiration. Sci Rep. 2017;7:43050. doi: 10.1038/srep43050.
- 37.Smith DB, Bernhardt G, Raine NE, Abel RL, Sykes D, Ahmed F et al. Exploring miniature insect brains using micro-CT scanning techniques. Sci Rep. 2016;6:21768. doi: 10.1038/srep21768.
- 41.Dumbravă MD, Rothschild BM, Weishampel DB, Csiki-Sava Z, Andrei RA, Acheson KA et al. A dinosaurian facial deformity and the first occurrence of ameloblastoma in the fossil record. Sci Rep. 2016;6:29271. doi: 10.1038/srep29271.
- 42.Eriksson ME, Parry LA, Rudkin DM. Earth’s oldest ‘Bobbit worm’–gigantism in a Devonian eunicidan polychaete. Sci Rep. 2017;7:43061. doi: 10.1038/srep43061.
- 57.Oliveira JM, Silva SS, Malafaya PB, Rodrigues MT, Kotobuki N, Hirose M, et al. Macroporous hydroxyapatite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering applications: physicochemical characterization and assessment of rat bone marrow stromal cell viability. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2009;91(1):175–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 61.Longo AB, Salmon PL, Ward WE. Comparison of ex vivo and in vivo micro‐computed tomography of rat tibia at different scanning settings. J Orthop Res. 2016. (Epub ahead of print). doi: 10.1002/jor.23435
- 63.Müller R, Koller B, Hildebrand T, Laib A, Gianolini S, Rüegsegger P. Resolution dependency of microstructural properties of cancellous bone based on three-dimensional mu-tomography. Technol Health Care. 1996;4(1):113–9.Google Scholar
- 65.Peyrin F, Salome M, Cloetens P, Laval‐Jeantet A, Ritman E, Rüegsegger P. Micro‐CT examinations of trabecular bone samples at different resolutions: 14, 7 and 2 micron level. Technol Health Care. 1998;6(5, 6):391–401.Google Scholar
- 67.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.Google Scholar
- 68.Ellis PD. The essential guide to effect sizes: statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. UK: Cambridge University Press; 2010.Google Scholar