Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing

, Volume 57, Issue 1, pp 311–324 | Cite as

Comparison of titanium dioxide scaffold with commercial bone graft materials through micro-finite element modelling in flow perfusion

  • Xianbin Zhang
  • Hanna Tiainen
  • Håvard J. HaugenEmail author
Original Article


TiO2 scaffolds have previously shown to have promising osteoconductive properties in previous in vivo experiments. Appropriate mechanical stimuli can further promote this osteoconductive behaviour. However, the complex mechanical environment and the mechanical stimuli enhancing bone regeneration for porous bioceramics have not yet been fully elucidated. This paper aims to compare and evaluate mechanical environment of TiO2 scaffold with three commercial CaP biomaterials, i.e. Bio-Oss, Cerabone and Maxresorb under simulated perfusion culture conditions. The solid phase and fluid phase were modelled as linear elastic material and Newtonian fluid, respectively. The mechanical stimulus was analysed within these porous scaffolds quantitatively. The results showed that the TiO2 had nearly heterogeneous stress distributions, however lower effective Young’s modulus than Cerabone and Maxresorb. The permeability and wall shear stress (WSS) for the TiO2 scaffold was significantly higher than other commercial bone substitute materials. Maxresorb and Bio-Oss showed lowest permeability and local areas of very high WSS. The detailed description of the mechanical performance of these scaffolds could help researchers to predict cell behaviour and to select the most appropriate scaffold for different in vitro and in vivo performances.

Graphical abstract

Schematic representation of the establishment procedure. Take the establishment process of Cerabone as an example. Left shows a slice of micro-CT image from Cerabone, and 1.5 mm × 1.5 mm region of interest was shown in the red box. A 1.5-mm3 cube was cut out by Boolean operation in Mimics (Materialise, Belgium), and the cubic model was remeshed in 3-Matic 6.0 (Materialise, Belgium). The cubic model is shown in blue, and the empty space in red.


Scaffold Finite element method Titanium dioxide Micro-CT CFD 



The authors acknowledge Catherine Heyward (Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo) for her revisions for the paper and Jonas Wengenroth (Department of Biomaterials, University of Oslo) for his assistance with the micro-CT scanning, respectively.

Funding information

This study was supported by the Research Council of Norway (grant 228415), UNINETT Sigma2 AS which manages the national infrastructure for computational science in Norway and offers services in high-performance computing and data storage (grant number NN9371K) and FEM analysis of novel bone graft substitutes and grant from the China Scholarship Council (CSC).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Tiainen and Haugen hold patents behind the technology for the TiO2 scaffolds (EP Patent 2,121,053, US Patent 9,629,941, US Patent App. 14/427,901, US Patent App. 14/427,683 and US Patent App. 14/427,854). The rights for these patents are shared between the University of Oslo and Corticalis AS. Haugen is a shareholder and board member of Corticalis AS.


  1. 1.
    Mow VC, Ratcliffe A, Rosenwasser MP, Buckwalter JA (1991) Experimental studies on repair of large osteochondral defects at a high weight bearing area of the knee-joint—a tissue engineering study. J Biomech Eng 113:198–207. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yan HR, Liu X, Zhu MH, Luo GL, Sun T, Peng Q, Zeng Y, Chen TJ, Wang YY, Liu KL, Feng B, Weng J, Wang JX (2016) Hybrid use of combined and sequential delivery of growth factors and ultrasound stimulation in porous multilayer composite scaffolds to promote both vascularization and bone formation in bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res A 104:195–208. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haugen HJ, Monjo M, Rubert M, Verket A, Lyngstadaas SP, Ellingsen JE, Ronold HJ, Wohlfahrt JC (2013) Porous ceramic titanium dioxide scaffolds promote bone formation in rabbit peri-implant cortical defect model. Acta Biomater 9:5390–5399. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hutmacher DW (2000) Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials 21:2529–2543. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGarry JG, Klein-Nulend J, Mullender MG, Prendergast PJ (2004) A comparison of strain and fluid shear stress in stimulating bone cell responses—a computational and experimental study. FASEB J 18:482–484. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Byrne DP, Lacroix D, Planell JA, Kelly DJ, Prendergast PJ (2007) Simulation of tissue differentiation in a scaffold as a function of porosity, Young’s modulus and dissolution rate: application of mechanobiological models in tissue engineering. Biomaterials 28:5544–5554. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stops AJF, Heraty KB, Browne M, O'Brien FJ, McHugh PE (2010) A prediction of cell differentiation and proliferation within a collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffold subjected to mechanical strain and perfusive fluid flow. J Biomech 43:618–626. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 10:565–576. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Metzger TA, Kreipke TC, Vaughan TJ, McNamara LM, Niebur GL (2015) The in situ mechanics of trabecular bone marrow: the potential for mechanobiological response. J Biomech Eng 137:011006. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Milan JL, Planell JA, Lacroix D (2009) Computational modelling of the mechanical environment of osteogenesis within a polylactic acid-calcium phosphate glass scaffold. Biomaterials 30:4219–4226. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Olivares AL, Marshal E, Planell JA, Lacroix D (2009) Finite element study of scaffold architecture design and culture conditions for tissue engineering. Biomaterials 30:6142–6149. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin LL, Lu YJ, Fang ML (2015) Computational modeling of the fluid mechanical environment of regular and irregular scaffolds. Int J Control Autom 12:529–539.
  13. 13.
    Farzadi A, Waran V, Solati-Hashjin M, Rahman ZAA, Asadi M, Abu Osman NA (2015) Effect of layer printing delay on mechanical properties and dimensional accuracy of 3D printed porous prototypes in bone tissue engineering. Ceram Int 41:8320–8330. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eshraghi S, Das S (2010) Mechanical and microstructural properties of polycaprolactone scaffolds with one-dimensional, two-dimensional, and three-dimensional orthogonally oriented porous architectures produced by selective laser sintering. Acta Biomater 6:2467–2476. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fostad G, Hafell B, Forde A, Dittmann R, Sabetrasekh R, Will J, Ellingsen JE, Lyngstadaas SP, Haugen HJ (2009) Loadable TiO2 scaffolds-a correlation study between processing parameters, micro CT analysis and mechanical strength. J Eur Ceram Soc 29:2773–2781. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tiainen H, Wiedmer D, Haugen HJ (2013) Processing of highly porous TiO2 bone scaffolds with improved compressive strength. J Eur Ceram Soc 33:15–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rumian L, Reczynska K, Wrona M, Tiainen H, Haugen HJ, Pamula E (2015) The influence of sintering conditions on microstructure and mechanical properties of titanium dioxide scaffolds for the treatment of bone tissue defects. Acta Bioeng Biomech 17:3–9. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Muller B, Reseland JE, Haugen HJ, Tiainen H (2015) Cell growth on pore-graded biomimetic TiO2 bone scaffolds. J Biomater Appl 29:1284–1295. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Verket A, Muller B, Wohlfahrt JC, Lyngstadaas SP, Ellingsen JE, Jostein Haugen H, Tiainen H (2016) TiO2 scaffolds in peri-implant dehiscence defects: an experimental pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res 27:1200–1206. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sabetrasekh R, Tiainen H, Lyngstadaas SP, Reseland J, Haugen H (2011) A novel ultra-porous titanium dioxide ceramic with excellent biocompatibility. J Biomater Appl 25:559–580. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D (2005) Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials 26:5474–5491. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garcia-Gareta E, Coathup MJ, Blunn GW (2015) Osteoinduction of bone grafting materials for bone repair and regeneration. Bone 81:112–121. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mate Sanchez de Val JE, Calvo-Guirado JL, Gomez-Moreno G, Perez-Albacete Martinez C, Mazon P, De Aza PN (2016) Influence of hydroxyapatite granule size, porosity, and crystallinity on tissue reaction in vivo. Part A: synthesis, characterization of the materials, and SEM analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 27:1331–1338. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tiainen H, Wohlfahrt JC, Verket A, Lyngstadaas SP, Haugen HJ (2012) Bone formation in TiO2 bone scaffolds in extraction sockets of minipigs. Acta Biomater 8:2384–2391. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maes F, Ransbeeck P, Van Oosterwyck H, Verdonck P (2009) Modeling fluid flow through irregular scaffolds for perfusion bioreactors. Biotechnol Bioeng 103:621–630. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schulz RM, Wustneck N, van Donkelaar CC, Shelton JC, Bader A (2008) Development and validation of a novel bioreactor system for load- and perfusion-controlled tissue engineering of chondrocyte-constructs. Biotechnol Bioeng 101:714–728. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang XB, Gong H (2015) Simulation on tissue differentiations for different architecture designs in bone tissue engineering scaffold based on cellular structure model. J Mech Med Biol 15.
  28. 28.
    Grimm MJ, Williams JL (1997) Measurements of permeability in human calcaneal trabecular bone. J Biomech 30:743–745. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nauman EA, Fong KE, Keaveny TM (1999) Dependence of intertrabecular permeability on flow direction and anatomic site. Ann Biomed Eng 27:517–524. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Coughlin TR, Niebur GL (2012) Fluid shear stress in trabecular bone marrow due to low-magnitude high-frequency vibration. J Biomech 45:2222–2229. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miranda P, Pajares A, Guiberteau F (2008) Finite element modeling as a tool for predicting the fracture behaviour of robocast scaffolds. Acta Biomater 4:1715–1724.
  32. 32.
    Birmingham E, Kreipke TC, Dolan EB, Coughlin TR, Owens P, McNamara LM, Niebur GL, McHugh PE (2015) Mechanical stimulation of bone marrow in situ induces bone formation in trabecular explants. Ann Biomed Eng 43:1036–1050. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ebrahimian-Hosseinabadi M, Ashrafizadeh F, Etemadifar M, Venkatraman SS (2011) Evaluating and modeling the mechanical properties of the prepared PLGA/nano-BCP composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Mater Sci Technol 27:1105–1112.
  34. 34.
    Sandino C, Planell JA, Lacroix D (2008) A finite element study of mechanical stimuli in scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Biomech 41:1005–1014. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Teo JCM, Teoh SH (2012) Permeability study of vertebral cancellous bone using micro-computational fluid dynamics. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 15:417–423. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Birmingham E, Grogan JA, Niebur GL, McNamara LM, McHugh PE (2013) Computational modelling of the mechanics of trabecular bone and marrow using fluid structure interaction techniques. Ann Biomed Eng 41:814–826. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Martinez-Vazquez FJ, Cabanas MV, Paris JL, Lozano D, Vallet-Regi M (2015) Fabrication of novel si-doped hydroxyapatite/gelatine scaffolds by rapid prototyping for drug delivery and bone regeneration. Acta Biomater 15:200–209. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Melchels FPW, Barradas AMC, van Blitterswijk CA, de Boer J, Feijen J, Grijpma DW (2010) Effects of the architecture of tissue engineering scaffolds on cell seeding and culturing. Acta Biomater 6:4208–4217. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Otsuki B, Takemoto M, Fujibayashi S, Neo M, Kokubo T, Nakamura T (2006) Pore throat size and connectivity determine bone and tissue ingrowth into porous implants: three-dimensional micro-CT based structural analyses of porous bioactive titanium implants. Biomaterials 27:5892–5900. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jones AC, Arns CH, Hutmacher DW, Milthorpe BK, Sheppard AP, Knackstedt MA (2009) The correlation of pore morphology, interconnectivity and physical properties of 3D ceramic scaffolds with bone ingrowth. Biomaterials 30:1440–1451. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tsuruga E, Takita H, Itoh H, Wakisaka Y, Kuboki Y (1997) Pore size of porous hydroxyapatite as the cell-substratum controls BMP-induced osteogenesis. J Biochem 121:317–324. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jones JR, Atwood RC, Poologasundarampillai G, Yue S, Lee PD (2009) Quantifying the 3D macrostructure of tissue scaffolds. J Mater Sci Mater Med 20:463–471. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mitsak AG, Kemppainen JM, Harris MT, Hollister SJ (2011) Effect of polycaprolactone scaffold permeability on bone regeneration in vivo. Tissue Eng Part A 17:1831–1839. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Impens S, Chen YT, Mullens S, Luyten F, Schrooten J (2010) Controlled cell-seeding methodologies: a first step toward clinically relevant bone tissue engineering strategies. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 16:1575–1583. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jeong CG, Hollister SJ (2010) Mechanical, permeability, and degradation properties of 3D designed poly(1,8 octanediol-co-citrate) scaffolds for soft tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res B 93b:141–149. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hui PW, Leung PC, Sher A (1996) Fluid conductance of cancellous bone graft as a predictor for graft-host interface healing. J Biomech 29:123–132. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Meyer U, Buchter A, Nazer N, Wiesmann HP (2006) Design and performance of a bioreactor system for mechanically promoted three-dimensional tissue engineering. Brit J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44:134–140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Boschetti F, Raimondi MT, Migliavacca F, Dubini G (2006) Prediction of the micro-fluid dynamic environment imposed to three-dimensional engineered cell systems in bioreactors. J Biomech 39:418–425. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Case N, Sen B, Thomas JA, Styner M, Xie Z, Jacobs CR, Rubin J (2011) Steady and oscillatory fluid flows produce a similar osteogenic phenotype. Calcif Tissue Int 88:189–197. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Raimondi MT, Boschetti F, Falcone L, Fiore GB, Remuzzi A, Marinoni E, Marazzi M, Pietrabissa R (2002) Mechanobiology of engineered cartilage cultured under a quantified fluid-dynamic environment. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 1:69–82. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cartmell SH, Porter BD, Garcia AJ, Guldberg RE (2003) Effects of medium perfusion rate on cell-seeded three-dimensional bone constructs in vitro. Tissue Eng 9:1197–1203. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Artzi Z, Tal H, Dayan D (2000) Porous bovine bone mineral in healing of human extraction sockets. Part 1: Histomorphometric evaluations at 9 months. J Periodontol 71:1015–1023. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Cardaropoli G, Araújo M, Hayacibara R, Sukekava F, Lindhe J (2005) Healing of extraction sockets and surgically produced-augmented and non-augmented-defects in the alveolar ridge. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 32:435–440. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomaterials, Institute of Clinical DentistryUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Automotive Simulation and ControlJilin UniversityChangchunChina
  3. 3.Department of Engineering MechanicsJilin University, Nanling CampusChangchunChina

Personalised recommendations