Computer-Aided Tissue Engineering: Benefiting from the Control Over Scaffold Micro-Architecture

  • Ahmad M. Tarawneh
  • Matthew Wettergreen
  • Michael A. K. Liebschner
Protocol
First Online:
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 868)

Abstract

Minimization schema in nature affects the material arrangements of most objects, independent of scale. The field of cellular solids has focused on the generalization of these natural architectures (bone, wood, coral, cork, honeycombs) for material improvement and elucidation into natural growth mechanisms. We applied this approach for the comparison of a set of complex three-dimensional (3D) architectures containing the same material volume but dissimilar architectural arrangements. Ball and stick representations of these architectures at varied material volumes were characterized according to geometric properties, such as beam length, beam diameter, surface area, space filling efficiency, and pore volume. Modulus, deformation properties, and stress distributions as contributed solely by architectural arrangements was revealed through finite element simulations. We demonstrated that while density is the greatest factor in controlling modulus, optimal material arrangement could result in equal modulus values even with volumetric discrepancies of up to 10%. We showed that at low porosities, loss of architectural complexity allows these architectures to be modeled as closed celled solids. At these lower porosities, the smaller pores do not greatly contribute to the overall modulus of the architectures and that a stress backbone is responsible for the modulus. Our results further indicated that when considering a deposition-based growth pattern, such as occurs in nature, surface area plays a large role in the resulting strength of these architectures, specifically for systems like bone. This completed study represents the first step towards the development of mathematical algorithms to describe the mechanical properties of regular and symmetric architectures used for tissue regenerative applications. The eventual goal is to create logical set of rules that can explain the structural properties of an architecture based solely upon its geometry. The information could then be used in an automatic fashion to generate patient-specific scaffolds for the treatment of tissue defects.

Key words

Computer-aided tissue engineering Bio-additive fabrication Scaffold micro-architecture Structure optimization Mathematical algorithms Micro-architecture control 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    US Department of Health & Human Services OPTN/SRTR Annual Report Trends in Organ Donation and Transplantation in the United States, 1998-2007 http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/ar2008/
  2. 2.
    Evans GRD, Brandt K, Widmer S et al (1999) In vivo evaluation of poly(l-lactic acid) porous conduits for peripheral nerve regeneration. Biomaterials 20:1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cooper ML, Hansbrough J, Spielvogel RL et al (1991) In vivo optimization of a living dermal substitute employing cultured fibroblast on a biodegradable polyglycolic acid or polyglactin mesh. Biomaterials 12:243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cima LG, Ingber D, Vacanti JP et al (1991) Hepatocyte culture on biodegradable polymeric substrates. Biotechnol Bioeng 38:145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sato M, Ando N, Ozawa S, Hiroyuki Miki, Hayashi K, Kitajima M (1997) Artificial esophagus. Mater Sci Forum 9250:105Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shinoka T, Mayer J (1997) New frontiers in tissue engineering: tissue engineered heart valves. In: Atala A, Mooney AJ (eds) Synthetic biodegradable polymers scaffolds. Birkhauser, Boston, pp 187–198Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ashiku SK, Randolph M, Vacanti CA (1997) Tissue engineering cartilage. Mater Sci Forum 250:129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim TH, Jannetta C, Vacanti JP, Upton J, Vacanti CA (1995) Engineered bone from polyglycolic acid polymer scaffold and periosteum. Spring Meeting of the Materials Research Society, San Francisco, CA, 17–21Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cao YL, Vacanti JP, Ma PX, Paige KT, Upton J, Langer R, Vacanti CA (1995) Tissue engineering of the tendon. Mater Res Soc Proc 394:83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wettergreen MA, Bucklen B, Sun W, Liebschner MAK (2005) Computer-aided tissue engineering of a human vertebral body. Ann Biomed Eng 33(10):1333–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sun W, Lal P (2002) Recent development on computer aided tissue engineering – a review. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 67(2):85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liebschner M, Bucklen B, Wettergreen M (2005) Mechanical aspects of tissue engineering. Semin Plast Surg 19:217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacobs CR, Davis B, Reiger CJ, et al (1999) The impact of boundary conditions and mesh size on the accuracy of cancellous bone tissue modulus determination using large-scale finite-element modeling. In: North American congress on biomechanics, 1999Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wettergreen M, Bucklen B, Sun W et al (2005) Computer-aided tissue engineering in whole bone replacement treatment. In: ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition, 2005Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bourell DL, Leu M, Rosen DW (2009) Roadmap for additive manufacturing identifying the future of freeform processing. Laboratory for freeform fabrication, advance manufacturing center, p 22–27Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freyman TM, Yannas I, Gibson LJ (2001) Cellular materials as porous scaffolds for tissue engineering. Prog Mater Sci 46:273–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krams R, Wentzel JJ, Cespedes I, Vinke R, Carlier S, van der Steen AF, Lancee CT, Slager CJ (1999) Effect of catheter placement on 3-D velocity profiles in curved tubes resembling the human coronary system. Ultrasound Med Biol 25(5):803–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peltola SM, Melchels FP, Grijpma DW, Kellomaki M (2008) A review of rapid prototyping techniques for tissue engineering purposes. Ann Med 40(4):268–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frost HM (1987) The mechanostat: a proposed pathogenic mechanism of osteoporoses and the bone mass effects of mechanical and nonmechanical agents. Bone Miner 2(2):73–85Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mullender M, El Haj AJ, Yang Y, van Duin MA, Burger EH, Klein-Nulend J (2004) Mechanotransduction of bone cells in vitro: mechanobiology of bone tissue. Med Biol Eng Comput 42(1):14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Turner FB, Andreassi JL 2nd, Ferguson J, Titus S, Tse A, Taylor SM, Moran RG (1999) Tissue-specific expression of functional isoforms of mouse folypoly-gamma-glutamae synthetase: a basis for targeting folate antimetabolites. Cancer Res 59(24):6074–6079Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martin I, Wendt D, Heberer M (2004) The role of bioreactors in tissue engineering. Trends Biotechnol 22:80–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cowin SC (ed) (1989) Bone mechanics handbook, 2nd edn. CRC, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Darling AL (2005) Functional design and fabrication of heterogeneous tissue engineering scaffolds. Dissertation, Drexel UniversityGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramtani S (2004) Mechanical modeling of cell/ECM and cell/cell interactions during the contraction of a fibroblast-populated collagen microsphere: theory and model simulation. J Biomech 37(11):1709–1718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fritton SP, Rubin C (2001) In vivo measurement of bone deformations using strain gauges. In: Cowin SC (ed) Bone biomechanics handbook. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, pp 1–41Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liebschner MAK, Wettergreen MA (2003) Optimization of bone scaffold engineering for load bearing applications. In: Ashammakhi N, Ferretti P (eds) Topics in tissue engineering 22:1–39Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liebschner MAK (2009) Mechano-biology as an optimization principle for biological tissue engineering. Virtual and Physical Prototyping 4(4):183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Berry CC, Campbell G, Spadiccino A, Roberton M, Curtis ASG (2004) The influence of microscale topography of fibroblast attachment and motility. Biomaterials 25:5781–5788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Drotleff S, Lungwitz U, Breuniga M, Dennis A, Blunk T, Tessmar J, Gopferich A (2004) Biomimetic polymers in pharmaceutical and biomedical sciences. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 58:385–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang L, Shelton R, Cooper PR, Lawson M, Trif JT, Barralet JE (2003) Evaluation of sodium alginate for bone marrow cell tissue engineering. Biomaterials  (24):3475–3481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ho ST, Hutmacher DW (2006) A comparison of micro CT with other techniques used in the characterization of scaffolds. Biomaterials 27:1362–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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
  34. 34.
    Murphy W, Dennis RG, Kileny JL, Mooney D (2002) Salt fusion: an approach to improve pore interconnectivity within tissue engineering scaffolds. Tissue Eng 8(1):43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ma PX, Choi J (2001) Biodegradable polymer scaffolds with well-defined interconnected spherical pore network. Tissue Eng 7:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Perren SM (1979) Physical and biological aspects of fracture healing with special reference to internal fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 138:175–196Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pearce P (1990) Structure in nature is a strategy for design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p 245Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ball P (1999) The self-made tapestry: pattern formation in nature. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 287Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gibson LJ (2005) Biomechanics of cellular solids. J Biomech 38(3):377–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mosekilde L (1993) Vertebral structure and strength in vivo and in vitro. Calcif Tissue Int 53(Suppl 1):S121–S125, discussion S125-126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sander EA, Downs JC, Hart RT, Burgoyne CF, Nauman EA (2006) A cellular solid model of the lamina cribrosa: mechanical dependence on morphology. J Biomech Eng 128(6):879–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cromwell PR (1997) Polyhedra. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 451Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sun W, Hu X (2002) Reasoning Boolean operation based CAD modeling for heterogeneous objects. Comput Aided Design 34:481–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rogers-Foy JM, Powers DL, Brosnan DA, Barefoot SF, Friedman RJ, LaBerge M (1999) Hydroxyapatite composites designed for antibiotic drug delivery and bone reconstruction: a caprine model. J Invest Surg 12(5):263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmad M. Tarawneh
    • 1
  • Matthew Wettergreen
    • 2
  • Michael A. K. Liebschner
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryBaylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of BioengineeringCaroline CollectiveHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Research Service LineMichael E. DeBakey VA Medical CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations