Towards a New Approach to Analyse Quality Control and Morphometric Variability in a Scaffold

  • Ana Campos Marin
  • Damien LacroixEmail author
Part of the Frontiers of Biomechanics book series (FB, volume 3)


Rapid prototyping is a powerful manufacturing technique to fabricate tissue engineering scaffolds as it provides control over scaffold architecture while processing biomaterials. For the successful integration of tissue engineering scaffolds in clinical applications, the manufacturing process needs to the meet good manufacturing practice standards delivering quality and reproducibility. Unexpected variations in the scaffold microstructure due to limitations in the fabrication process could lead to undesired mechanical stimuli at the cell level. Thus, if cell activity is affected, tissue growth will be perturbed. In this chapter, an in silico protocol to analyse fabricated scaffolds is presented and used to evaluate a commercial regular porous scaffold from 3D Biotek. The actual μCT-based morphology of five fabricated samples was analysed and then integrated into computational fluid dynamics simulations to analyse the local fluid flow conditions. The fabricated samples present variations in the internal microstructured and in the local fluid dynamics compared to the CAD scaffold. In addition, the five samples show intersample variability as well as internal variability from pore to pore. It is demonstrated that geometrical imperfections can deviate scaffold performance from the intended purpose. In this chapter, it is shown that in silico methods can be part of standard inspection protocols for tissue engineering applications.


Additive manufacturing Scaffold CFD GMP Tissue engineering 


  1. Acosta Santamaría VA, Malvè M, Duizabo A, Mena Tobar A, Gallego Ferrer G, García Aznar JM, Doblaré M, Ochoa I (2013) Computational methodology to determine fluid related parameters of non regular three-dimensional scaffolds. Ann Biomed Eng 41:2367–2380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cantini M, Fiore GB, Redaelli A, Soncini M (2009) Numerical fluid-dynamic optimization of microchannel-provided porous scaffolds for the co-culture of adherent and non-adherent cells. Tissue Eng Part A 15:615–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cioffi M, Boschetti F, Raimondi MT, Dubini G (2006) Modeling evaluation of the fluid-dynamic microenvironment in tissue-engineered constructs: a micro-CT based model. Biotechnol Bioeng 93:500–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Costa PF, Martins A, Neves NM, Gomes M, Reis RL (2014) Automating the processing steps for obtaining bone tissue engineered substitutes: from imaging tools to bioreactors. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 20:567–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dias MR, Guedes JM, Flanagan CL, Hollister SJ, Fernandes PR (2014) Optimization of scaffold design for bone tissue engineering: a computational and experimental study. Med Eng Phys 36:448–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Domingos M, Chiellini F, Gloria A, Ambrosio L, Bartolo P, Chiellini E (2012) Effect of process parameters on the morphological and mechanical properties of 3D bioextruded poly(ε-caprolactone) scaffolds. Rapid Prototyp J 18:56–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gautam S, Dinda AK, Mishra NC (2013) Fabrication and characterization of PCL/gelatin composite nanofibrous scaffold for tissue engineering applications by electrospinning method. Mater Sci Eng C 33:1228–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hollister SJ (2005) Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering. Nat Mater 4:518–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hoque ME, Hutmacher DW, Feng W, Li S, Huang MH, Vert M, Wong YS (2005) Fabrication using a rapid prototyping system and in vitro characterization of PEG-PCL-PLA scaffolds for tissue engineering. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 16:1595–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jae M, Dean D, Knothe ML (2013) Biomaterials mechanical modulation of nascent stem cell lineage commitment in tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomaterials 34:5766–5775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jamalpoor Z, Mirzadeh H, Joghataei MT, Zeini D, Bagheri-Khoulenjani S, Nourani MR (2015) Fabrication of cancellous biomimetic chitosan-based nanocomposite scaffolds applying a combinational method for bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 103:1882–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim DH, Heo S-J, Kim S-H, Shin JW, Park SH, Shin J-W (2011) Shear stress magnitude is critical in regulating the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells even with endothelial growth medium. Biotechnol Lett 33:2351–2359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mack JJ, Youssef K, Noel ODV, Lake MP, Wu A, Iruela-Arispe ML, Bouchard L-S (2013) Real-time maps of fluid flow fields in porous biomaterials. Biomaterials 34:1980–1986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mather ML, Morgan SP, White LJ, Tai H, Kockenberger W, Howdle SM, Shakesheff KM, Crowe J a (2008) Image-based characterization of foamed polymeric tissue scaffolds. Biomed Mater 3(1):015011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McCoy RJ, Jungreuthmayer C, O’Brien FJ (2012) Influence of flow rate and scaffold pore size on cell behavior during mechanical stimulation in a flow perfusion bioreactor. Biotechnol Bioeng 109:1583–1594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Melchels FPW, Bertoldi K, Gabbrielli R, Velders AH, Feijen J, Grijpma DW (2010) Mathematically defined tissue engineering scaffold architectures prepared by stereolithography. Biomaterials 31:6909–6916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Olivares AL, Lacroix D (2013) In: Geris L (ed) Computational modeling in tissue engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 107–126Google Scholar
  18. Park SH, Park DS, Shin JW, Kang YG, Kim HK, Yoon TR, Shin J-W (2012) Scaffolds for bone tissue engineering fabricated from two different materials by the rapid prototyping technique: PCL versus PLGA. J Mater Sci Mater Med 23:2671–2678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Podichetty JT, Bhaskar PR, Khalf A, Madihally SV (2014) Modeling pressure drop using generalized scaffold characteristics in an axial-flow bioreactor for soft tissue regeneration. Ann Biomed Eng 42:1319–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Podshivalov L, Gomes CM, Zocca A, Guenster J, Bar-Yoseph P, Fischer A (2013) Design, analysis and additive manufacturing of porous structures for biocompatible micro-scale scaffolds. Procedia CIRP 5:247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Porter B, Zauel R, Stockman H, Guldberg R, Fyhrie D (2005) 3-D computational modeling of media flow through scaffolds in a perfusion bioreactor. J Biomech 38:543–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rotenberg MY, Ruvinov E, Armoza A, Cohen S (2012) A multi-shear perfusion bioreactor for investigating shear stress effects in endothelial cell constructs. Lab Chip 12:2696–2703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ryan G, McGarry P, Pandit A, Apatsidis D (2009) Analysis of the mechanical behavior of a titanium scaffold with a repeating unit-cell substructure. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 90:894–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 10:565–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Serra T, Planell JA, Navarro M (2013) High-resolution PLA-based composite scaffolds via 3-D printing technology. Acta Biomater 9:5521–5530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Truscello S, Kerckhofs G, Van Bael S, Pyka G, Schrooten J, Van Oosterwyck H (2012) Prediction of permeability of regular scaffolds for skeletal tissue engineering: a combined computational and experimental study. Acta Biomater 8:1648–1658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Bael S, Kerckhofs G, Moesen M, Pyka G, Schrooten J, Kruth JP (2011) Micro-CT-based improvement of geometrical and mechanical controllability of selective laser melted Ti6Al4V porous structures. Mater Sci Eng A 528:7423–7431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Xu H, Dong J, Chai G, Yu Z, Lang W (2010) Rapid prototyped PGA / PLA scaffolds in the reconstruction of mandibular condyle bone defects. The international journal of medical robotics and computer assisted surgery 6:66–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yeong W-Y, Chua C-K, Leong K-F, Chandrasekaran M (2004) Rapid prototyping in tissue engineering: challenges and potential. Trends Biotechnol 22:643–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yu W, Qu H, Hu G, Zhang Q, Song K, Guan H, Liu T, Qin J (2014) A microfluidic-based multi-shear device for investigating the effects of low fluid-induced stresses on osteoblasts. PLoS One 9:e89966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zermatten E, Vetsch JR, Ruffoni D, Hofmann S, Müller R, Steinfeld A (2014) Micro-computed tomography based computational fluid dynamics for the determination of shear stresses in scaffolds within a perfusion bioreactor. Ann Biomed Eng 42:1085–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhao F, Chella R, Ma T (2007) Effects of shear stress on 3-D human mesenchymal stem cell construct development in a perfusion bioreactor system: experiments and hydrodynamic modeling. Biotechnol Bioeng 96:584–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INSIGNEO Institute for in silico MedicineThe University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations