Mechanical response of 3D Insert® PCL to compression

Brunelli, Marzia; Perrault, Cécile M.; Lacroix, Damien

doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.08.038

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in line with the findings reported regarding the significant variability of the mechanical properties of different samples from a specific bone scaffold ordered from the same producer at different times . Based on our observations, the time gaps between completion of the printing job, removal of the support material, and mechanical testing, the water solution temperature, the saturation level at which the water bath is refreshed, and as a result the amount of residual support material within the sample considerably affect the mechanical properties of the samples.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…This enabled us to detect isolated effects of each selected process parameters on the outcome variables among the study cases. While there has been numerous number of studies on comparing different build parameters (e.g., layer thickness, build orientation, and laser power), printing materials, structural designs, and printing technologies in terms of the geometrical and mechanical properties of scaffolds, 62-65 very few have studied reproducibility of such properties using the same processes, 13,[66][67][68][69] and to our knowledge, none have yet tried to understand the effect of altering the process parameters on the mechanical properties of printed trabecular-like microstructures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bone scaffolds temporarily replace the defected or lost bone section until the regeneration process is taken place and new bone tissue is produced. The mechanical properties (stiffness and strength) of scaffolds used for bone regeneration play an important role in determining the possibility and quality of cell regrowth and proliferation . These properties are governed by the geometry of the structure and the tissue/printing material properties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mechanical properties (stiffness and strength) of scaffolds used for bone regeneration play an important role in determining the possibility and quality of cell regrowth and proliferation. 4,13,14 These properties are governed by the geometry of the structure and the tissue/printing material properties. A scaffold much stiffer or much softer than the surrounding bone tissue would result in osteopenia or fracture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Influence of processing parameters on mechanical properties of a 3D‐printed trabecular bone microstructure

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural bone microstructure has shown to be the most efficient choice for the bone scaffold design. However, there are several process parameters involved in the generation of a microCT‐based 3D‐printed (3DP) bone. In this study, the effect of selected parameters on the reproducibility of mechanical properties of a 3DP trabecular bone structure is investigated. MicroCT images of a distal radial sample were used to reconstruct a 3D ROI of trabecular bone. Nine tensile tests on bulk material and 54 compression tests on 8.2 mm cubic samples were performed (9 cases × 6 specimens/case). The effect of input‐image resolution, STL mesh decimation, boundary condition, support material, and repetition parameters on the weight, elastic modulus, and strength were studied. The elastic modulus and the strength of bulk material showed consistent results (CV% = 9 and 6%, respectively). The weight, elastic modulus, and strength of the cubic samples showed small intragroup variation (average CV% = 1.2, 9, and 5.5%, respectively). All studied parameters had a significant effect on the outcome variables with less effect on the weight. Utmost care to every step of the 3DP process and involved parameters is required to be able to reach the desired mechanical properties in the final printed specimen. © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 108B:38–47, 2020.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Influence of processing parameters on mechanical properties of a 3D‐printed trabecular bone microstructure

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The software used for image reconstruction was ScanIP (Simpleware Ltd, UK) (Brunelli et al. 2017 ), which has been thoroughly used to the generation of a FE mesh from micro-CT data and thus ensures the minimization of potential errors resulting from this process (Guldberg et al. 1998 ; Young et al.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micromechanical study of the load transfer in a polycaprolactone–collagen hybrid scaffold when subjected to unconfined and confined compression

Castro

Lacroix

2017

Biomech Model Mechanobiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scaffolds are used in diverse tissue engineering applications as hosts for cell proliferation and extracellular matrix formation. One of the most used tissue engineering materials is collagen, which is well known to be a natural biomaterial, also frequently used as cell substrate, given its natural abundance and intrinsic biocompatibility. This study aims to evaluate how the macroscopic biomechanical stimuli applied on a construct made of polycaprolactone scaffold embedded in a collagen substrate translate into microscopic stimuli at the cell level. Eight poro-hyperelastic finite element models of 3D printed hybrid scaffolds from the same batch were created, along with an equivalent model of the idealized geometry of that scaffold. When applying an 8% confined compression at the macroscopic level, local fluid flow of up to 20 m/s and octahedral strain levels mostly under 20% were calculated in the collagen substrate. Conversely unconfined compression induced fluid flow of up to 10 m/s and octahedral strain from 10 to 35%. No relevant differences were found amongst the scaffold-specific models. Following the mechanoregulation theory based on Prendergast et al. (J Biomech 30:539–548, 1997. 10.1016/S0021-9290(96)00140-6), those results suggest that mainly cartilage or fibrous tissue formation would be expected to occur under unconfined or confined compression, respectively. This in silico study helps to quantify the microscopic stimuli that are present within the collagen substrate and that will affect cell response under in vitro bioreactor mechanical stimulation or even after implantation.

show abstract

Micromechanical Behavior of TPMS Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering

Castro

Santos

Pires

et al. 2020

Macro Materials & Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The triply periodic minimal surfaces (TPMS) methodology is explored to design porosity and curvature‐controlled tissue engineering (TE) scaffolds. This work combines mechanical testing and finite element (FE) simulation to characterize TPMS scaffolds micromechanical behavior, i.e., to estimate the response at the cell level to the macromechanical properties of different geometries (Schwartz D, Gyroid, and Schwartz P, with 60%, 70%, and 80% porosity, identified from SD60 to SP80) and testing conditions (6%, 8%, and 10% ramp compression, during 10, 20, and 30 s). Mechanical tests with ten 3D printed samples per model obtain Young Modulus levels from 0.048 GPa (SD80) to 0.267 GPa (SD60) and yield stresses from 0.495 MPa (SP80) to 5.226 MPa (SD60), being these associated with trabecular bone. FE simulations identify strain rate as the major influencer for cell response, as the probabilities for bone formation increase from 23.18% (SD) to 29.81% (SP) when increasing the compression period from 10 to 30 s. Additionally, compression beyond 6% causes excessive rates of cell death. SD and SG models have more consistent cell adhesion paths than SP ones, but superior stiffness of SD scaffolds induces higher cell death probabilities. Thus, SG scaffolds would be a better choice for most TE applications.

show abstract

Mechanical response of 3D Insert® PCL to compression

Cited by 16 publications

References 26 publications

Influence of processing parameters on mechanical properties of a 3D‐printed trabecular bone microstructure

Influence of processing parameters on mechanical properties of a 3D‐printed trabecular bone microstructure

Micromechanical study of the load transfer in a polycaprolactone–collagen hybrid scaffold when subjected to unconfined and confined compression

Micromechanical Behavior of TPMS Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About