Page 59 - IJB-8-3
        P. 59
     Noroozi, et al.:
           each other, so the resulting force on the knee joint will   LOTUS-NDT scanner, and image processing and analysis
           be an eccentric force. The stress fields in the scaffold will   services.  They  also  gratefully  acknowledge  the  partial
           help the designer to optimize the structural integrity of   support from European Union’s Horizon 2020 research
           the component (Figure 17).                          and  innovation  program  (H2020-WIDESPREAD-2018,
               In  addition,  the  interaction  between  the  designed   SIRAMM) under grant agreement No. 857124.
           scaffold  and  live  tissues  and  molecules,  which  are  the
           foundations of the growth mechanism, can be calculated   Conflict of interest
           from the FEM results of µCT scans. Thus, the FEM-µCT   The authors declare that they have no known competing
           simulation is a powerful tool in the hands of the tissue   financial  interests  or  personal  relationships  that  could
           engineer to study the effect of different factors.  have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
           4. Conclusions                                      Author contributions
           Different  scaffolds  with  different  transition  zones  were   Conceptualization, R.N., A.H., and M.B. Data curation,
           designed and 3D printed by employing the FDM process.   R.N.  and  F.T.  Formal  analysis,  R.N.,  F.T., A.Z.,  R.B.,
           First, single-cell type structures, including diamond, I-WP,   M.A.S.,  A.R.G.,  A.H.,  and  M.B.  Investigation,  R.N.
           and gyroid, were designed and printed. It has been shown   Methodology,  R.N., A.H.,  and  M.B.  Supervision, A.H.
           that the diamond structure was stiffer than others as the   and M.B. Visualization, R.N. and F.T. Writing – original
           porosity plays a significant role on the scaffold’s behavior.   draft, R.N. and F.T. Writing – review and editing, R.N.,
           The  results  showed  that  the  effect  of  the  transitional   F.T.,  A.Z.,  R.B.,  M.A.S.,  A.R.G.,  A.H.,  and  M.B.  All
           zone is less important than that of the porosity; in other   authors have read and agreed to the published version of
           words, the results of compression test revealed that some   the manuscript.
           scaffolds with sudden transitional zones but lower porosity
           in comparison with other scaffolds had higher Young’s   References
           modulus.  However,  it  should  be  considered  that  these
           results are valid only in the compression test; for other   1.   Furth  ME,  Atala  A,  2014,  Tissue  Engineering:  Future
           mechanical  tests,  such  as  shear,  tensile,  or  multi-axial   Perspectives.  In:  Principles  of  Tissue  Engineering.
           loading, the effects of transition zones could be different.   Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. p. 83–123.
           Furthermore,  the  AM  build  orientation  for  bending-  2.   McClelland  R,  et al.,  2005,  Tissue  Engineering.  In:
           dominated  scaffolds,  including  gyroid  and  diamond,   Enderle    JD,  Blanchard  SM,  Bronzino  JD,  editors.
           showed that scaffolds printed vertically displayed a stiffer   Introduction  to  Biomedical  Engineering.  2   ed.  Boston:
                                                                                                    nd
           mechanical response with respect to horizontally printed
           scaffolds.  Nevertheless,  a  meaningful  trend  could  not   Academic Press, p313-402.
           be extracted for the I-WP cell type that is a stretching-  3.   Rumpler M, Woesz A, Dunlop JW, et al., 2008, The Effect
           dominated scaffold. Further, µCT analysis was employed   of Geometry on Three-dimensional Tissue Growth. J R Soc
           to  determine  the  quality  of  real  printed  scaffolds.   Interface, 5:1173–80.
           µCT  images  exhibited  that  the  FDM  process  does  not   4.   Koons GL, Diba M, Mikos AG, 2020, Materials Design for
           provide  high-quality  scaffolds  and  some  geometrical   Bone-tissue Engineering. Nat Rev Mater, 5:584–603.
           anomalies always exist. The finite element method was   5.   Whitney  GA,  Jayaraman  K,  Dennis  JE,  et al.,  2017,
           finally implemented and verified with the experimental
           results.  It  has  been  shown  that  the  µCT-based  FEM   Scaffold-free Cartilage Subjected to Frictional Shear Stress
           method is able to better predict the mechanical behavior   Demonstrates  Damage  by  Cracking  and  Surface  Peeling.
           of 3D-printed scaffolds rather than using the scaffold’s   J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 11:412–24.
           nominal geometry. Because of the complex nature of the   6.   Saveleva  M,  Ivanov  AN,  Chibrikova  JA,  et  al.,  2021,
           mechanical problem under study, a µCT-FEM approach      Osteogenic  Capability  of  Vaterite-Coated  Nonwoven
           was  used  to  analyze  a  case  characterized  by  complex   Polycaprolactone  Scaffolds  for  In Vivo  Bone Tissue
           loadings. In conclusion, this study revealed that in multi-  Regeneration. Macromol Biosci, 21:e2100266.
           morphology scaffolds with sudden or gradual transition
           zones, the porosity has the dominant effect, that is, the   7.   Boyce ST, Lalley AL, 2018, Tissue Engineering of Skin and
           lower the porosity, the stiffer the Young’s modulus.    Regenerative Medicine for Wound Care. Burns Trauma, 6:4.
                                                               8.   Murphy SV, Atala A, 2014, 3D Bioprinting of Tissues and
           Acknowledgments                                         Organs. Nat Biotechnol, 32:773–85.
           The authors would like to acknowledge Behin Negareh   9.   Yang Y, Wang G, Liang H, et al., 2019, Additive Manufacturing
           Co.,  Ltd.,  Tehran,  Iran,  for  µCT  imaging  using  their   of Bone scaffolds. Int J Bioprint, 5:148.
                                       International Journal of Bioprinting (2022)–Volume 8, Issue 3        51
     	
