Advertisement

Micro-CT-based screening of biomechanical and structural properties of bone tissue engineering scaffolds

  • Tim Van Cleynenbreugel
  • Jan Schrooten
  • Hans Van Oosterwyck
  • Jos Vander Sloten
Original Article

Abstract

The development of successful scaffolds for bone tissue engineering requires a concurrent engineering approach that combines different research fields. In order to limit in vivo experiments and reduce trial and error research, a scaffold screening technique has been developed. In this protocol seven structural and three biomechanical properties of potential scaffold materials are quantified and compared to the desired values. The property assessment is done on computer models of the scaffolds, and these models are based on micro-CT images. As a proof of principle, three porous scaffolds were evaluated with this protocol: stainless steel, hydroxyapatite, and titanium. These examples demonstrate that the modelling technique is able to quantify important scaffold properties. Thus, a powerful technique for automated screening of bone tissue engineering scaffolds has been developed that in a later stage may be used to tailor the scaffold properties to specific requirements.

Keywords

Bone tissue engineering Scaffold Morphology Microfocus computed tomography Biomechanics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is part of the Guided Bone Engineering (GBE) project, an interdisciplinary research project funded by The Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT-Flanders) under the program for strategic basic research (GBOU-020181). The scientific GBE partners are the Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering, the Division of Biomechanics and Engineering Design and the Department of Rheumatology of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, the Polymer Materials Research Group of the Ghent University and VITO, the Flemish Institute for Technological Research. Major Flemish industrial actors also support this project. Hans Van Oosterwyck is a postdoctoral fellow of the Research Foundation-Flanders.

References

  1. 1.
    Bobyn J, Pilliar R, Cameron H, Weatherly G (1980) The optimum pore size for the fixation of porous-surfaced metal implants by the ingrowth of bone. Clin Orthop 150:263–270Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bose S, Darsell J, Kintner M, Hosick H, Bandyopadhyay A (2003) Pore size and pore volume effects on alumina and TCP ceramic scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng: C 23(4):479–486Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burstein A, Reilly D, Martens M (1976) Aging of bone tissue: mechanical properties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 58(1):82–86Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Camacho D, Hopper R, Lin G, Myers B (1997) An improved method for finite element mesh generation of geometrically complex structures with application to the skullbase. J Biomech 30(10):1067–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delerue JF (2001) 3D segmentation, application to pore network extraction and to hydrodynamic characterization of soils. PhD Thesis, L’Université Paris XI OrsayGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delerue JF, Lomov SV, Parnas RS, Verpoest I, Wevers M (2003) Pore network modelling of permeability for textile reinforcements. J Polym Composites 24(3):344–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Di Palma F, Chamson A, Lafage-Proust MH, Jouffray P, Sabido O, Peyroche S, Vico L, Rattner A (2004) Physiological strains remodel extracellular matrix and cell–cell adhesion in osteoblastic cells cultured on alumina-coated titanium alloy. Biomaterials 25(13):2565–2575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ding M, Odgaard A, Linde F, Hvid I (2002) Age-related variations in the microstructure of human tibial cancellous bone. J Orthop Res 20(3):615–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duncan R, Turner C (1995) Mechanotransduction and the functional response of bone to mechanical strain. Calcif Tissue Int 57(5):344–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gray H, Gill R (2004) Standardised tibia. From: The BEL Repository, http://www.tecno.ior.it/VRLAB/
  11. 11.
    Guillemin G, Meunier A, Dallant P, Christel P, Pouliquen J, Sedel L (1989) Comparison of coral resorption and bone apposition with two natural corals of different porosities. J Biomed Mater Res 23(7):765–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heller M, Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Dürselen L, Pohl M, Claes L, Haas N, Duda G (2001) Musculo-skeletal loading conditions at the hip during walking and stair climbing. J Biomech 34(7):883–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hollister S, Brennan J, Kikuchi N (1994) A homogenisation sampling procedure for calculating trabecluar bone effective stiffness and tissue level stress. J Biomech 27(4):433–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hollister S, Maddox R, Taboas J (2002) Optimal design and fabrication of scaffolds to mimic tissue properties and satisfy biological constraints. Biomaterials 23(20):4095–4103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hutmacher D (2000) Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials 21(24):2529–2543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ignatius A, Blessing H, Liedert A, Schmidt C, Neidlinger-Wilke C, Kaspar D, Friemert B, Claes L (2005) Tissue engineering of bone: effects of mechanical strain on osteoblastic cells in type I collagen matrices. Biomaterials 26(3):311–318, 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.02.045Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jee W (2001) Bone mechanics handbook, 2nd edn. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, chap 1, pp 1–35. ISBN/ISSN 0-8493-9117-2Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jones DB, Nolte H, Scholübbers JG, Turner E, Veltel D (1991) Biochemical signal transduction of mechanical strain in osteoblast-like cells. Biomaterials 12(2):101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D (2005) Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials 26(27):5474–5491, 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.002, http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.002 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kohles S, Roberts J, Upton M, Wilson C, Bonassar L, Schlichting A (2001) Direct perfusion measurements of cancellous bone anisotropic permeability. J Biomech 34(9):1197–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mikos AG, Sarakino G, Lyman MD, Ingber DE, Vacanti JP, Langer R (1993) Prevascularization of porous biodegradable polymers. Biotechnol Bioeng 42(6):716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    O’Brien F, Harley B, Yannas I, Gibson L (2005) The effect of pore size on cell adhesion in collagen-GAG scaffolds. Biomaterials 26:433–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Odgaard A, Gundersen H (1993) Quantification of connectivity in cancellous bone, with special emphasis on 3-D reconstructions. Bone 14(2):173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Odgaard A, Kabel J, van Rietbergen B, Dalstra M, Huiskes R (1997) Fabric and elastic principal directions of cancellous bone are closely related. J Biomech 30(5):487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pu X, Liu X, Qiu F, Huang L (2004) Novel method to optimize the structure of reticulated porous ceramics. J Am Ceram Soc 87(7):1392–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sachlos E, Czernuszka J (2003) Making tissue engineering scaffolds work. Review: the application of solid freeform fabrication technology to the production of tissue engineering scaffolds (discussion 39–40). Eur Cell Mater 5:29–39Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sepulveda P, Ortega FS, Innocentini MDM, Pandolfelli VC (2000) Properties of highly porous hydroxyapatite obtained by the gelcasting of foams. J Am Ceram Soc 83(12):3021–3024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shin H, Jo S, Mikos AG (2003) Biomimetic materials for tissue engineering. Biomaterials 24(24):4353–4364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sikavitsas V, Temenoff J, Mikos A (2001) Biomaterials and bone mechanotransduction. Biomaterials 22(19):2581–2593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vacanti J, Langer R (1999) Tissue engineering: the design and fabrication of living replacement devices for surgical reconstruction and transplantation. Lancet 354(Suppl 1):SI32–SI34Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van Cleynenbreugel T (2005) Porous scaffolds for the replacement of large bone defects: a biomechanical design study. PhD Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, ISBN 90-5682-613-1Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Van Cleynenbreugel T, Van Oosterwyck H, Vander Sloten J, Schrooten J (2002) Trabecular bone scaffolding using a biomimetic approach. J Mater Sci Mater Med 13(12):1245–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Van Cleynenbreugel
    • 1
  • Jan Schrooten
    • 2
  • Hans Van Oosterwyck
    • 1
  • Jos Vander Sloten
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Biomechanics and Engineering DesignKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Metallurgy and Materials EngineeringKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations