Permeability of Rapid Prototyped Artificial Bone Scaffold Structures

Article Preview

Abstract:

Fluid flow through a bone scaffold structure is an important factor in its ability to build up a living tissue. Permeability is often used as a measure of a structure’s ability to allow for flow of nutrients and waste products related to the growth of new tissue. These structures also need to meet conflicting mechanical strength requirements to allow for load bearing. In this work, the effect of different bone structure morphologies on permeability were examined both numerically and experimentally. Cubic and hexagonal based three dimensional scaffold structures were produced via stereolithography and 3D printing techniques. In particular, porosity percentage, pore size, and pore geometry were examined. Porosity content was varied from 30% to 70% and pore size from 0.34 mm to 3 mm. An adapted Kozeny-Carmen numerical method was applied for calculation of permeability through these structures and an experimental validation of these results was performed via a standard permeability experimental testing set-up. From the results it was determined that increased permeability was provided with the cubic rather than hexagonal structure as well as by utilizing the larger pore size and higher levels of porosity. Stereolithography was found to be the better processing technique, not only for improved micrometer scale dimensional accuracy reasons, but also due to the increase wettability found on the produced surfaces. The appropriate model constants determined in this work will allow for analysis of new alternate structure designs on the permeability of rapid prototyped synthetic bone structures.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Pages:

607-612

Citation:

Online since:

January 2012

Export:

Price:

[1] J.R. Jones, G. Poologasundarampillai, R.C. Atwood, D. Bernard and P.D. Lee, Biomaterials 2007, 28, 1404-1413.

Google Scholar

[2] D.A., Shimko, V.F. Shimko, E.A. Sander, K.F. Dickson, E.A. Nauman, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B-Applied Biomaterials 2005, 73B, 315-324.

DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.30229

Google Scholar

[3] A.A. Al-Munajjed, M. Hien, R. Kujat, J.P. Gleeson, and J. Hammer, Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine 2008, 19, 2859-2864.

DOI: 10.1007/s10856-008-3422-5

Google Scholar

[4] H.Y. Cheung, K.T. Lau, T.P. Lu and D. Hui, Composites Part B-Engineering 2007, 38, 291.

Google Scholar

[5] D.A. Shimko, E.A. Nauman, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B-Applied Biomaterials 2007, 80B, 360-369.

Google Scholar

[6] A.J. Beaudoin, W.M. Mihalko, W.R. Krause, Journal of Biomechanics 1991, 24, 127.

Google Scholar

[7] M.J. Grimm and J.L. Williams, Journal of Biomechanics 1997, 30, 743-745.

Google Scholar

[8] S.S. Kohles, J.B. Roberts, M.L. Upton, C.G. Wilson, L.J. Bonassar, and A.L. Schlichting, Journal of Biomechanics 2001, 34, 1197-1202.

DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(01)00082-3

Google Scholar

[9] M. Lipowiecki and D. Brabazon, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 83-86, 2010, pp.914-922.

Google Scholar

[10] R.S. Rosenson, A. McCormick, and E.F. Uretz, Clinical Chemistry 1996, 42, 1189-1195.

Google Scholar

[11] R.P. Chapuis and M. Aubertin, EPM-RT-2003 03, École Polytechnique, Montréal, Que (2003).

Google Scholar