| Literature DB >> 25818150 |
Nathaniel Narra1, Sébastien B G Blanquer2, Suvi P Haimi2, Dirk W Grijpma2, Jari Hyttinen1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advances in rapid-prototyping and 3D printing technologies have enhanced the possibilities in preparing designed architectures for tissue engineering applications. A major advantage in custom designing is the ability to create structures with desired mechanical properties. While the behaviour of a designed scaffold can be simulated using bulk material properties, it is important to verify the behaviour of a printed scaffold at the microstructure level.Entities:
Keywords: 3D-printing; MicroCT; PTMC; in-situ deformation; poly(trimethylene carbonate); scaffold design
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25818150 PMCID: PMC4923732 DOI: 10.3233/CH-151931
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Hemorheol Microcirc ISSN: 1386-0291 Impact factor: 2.375
The parameters and features for each of the 3 scaffold designs – A, B and C
| Porosity (%) | Pore size (μm) | Surface area (m −1) | Constant ( | Boundary conditions x, y, z | |
| A | 71 | 440 | 0.159 | −0.6 | [−6 |
| B | 72 | 540 | 0.175 | −0.65 | [−5 |
| C | 73 | 700 | 0.214 | −0.65 | [−4 |
Fig.1Mechanical deformation device and the sample setup within it. Drawing in the left pane shows the CAD assembly of the various components. The photographs show the fabricated device where – centre pane: location of a sample within the device, right pane: The assembled device ready to be placed in the μCT.
Imaging parameters used for all samples (Scaffolds A, B and C)
| Voltage (kV) | 45 | Source distance (mm) | 55 |
| Power (W) | 10 | Detector distance (mm) | 250 |
| Time/projection (s) | 4 | Pixel size (μm) | 12.24 |
| Camera binning | 2 | Field of view (mm) | 12.25 |
Fig.23D renderings of the segmented image volumes of the three (non-deformed) scaffold designs a) Scaffold A – pore size 440μm, b) Scaffold B – pore size 540μm and c) Scaffold C–pore size 700μm. The colours attributed to each render is only for visualization purposes to indicate the 3 different designs.
Fig.3a) The scaffold B surface rendering based on μCT image data and triangulated surface elements, before and after deformation. b) The calculated deformation vectors plotted in a 3D space coloured according to the vector magnitude (deformation magnitude).
Fig.4a) Deformation over the surface of scaffold B (left) and the plot of only deformation vectors in 3D with colour indicating magnitude. Deformation is applied along the z-axis (green arrow). b) The residual deformations in the x-y plane and c) The deviation from expected linear deformation behaviour in the z component of the vectors (direction of the residual vectors shown with white arrows).
Fig.5The displacement magnitudes of the surface nodes of the scaffolds along the vertical (compression axis) - a) Scaffold A, b) Scaffold B and c) Scaffold C. The horizontal axis of the plot is the distance (from the resting surface) of the axial plane (along the deformation axis). The plotted blue line is the average of all surface nodes lying on the axial plane. (d) A comparison of the vertical component (z-component) of the deformation vector for the 3 samples.