Effect of Surface Curvature on the Mechanical and Mass-Transport Properties of Additively Manufactured Tissue Scaffolds with Minimal Surfaces
Source abstract
Abstract
The design of scaffolds for tissue engineering has to consider two trade-off properties: mechanical and mass-transport properties. This is particularly true for additively manufactured scaffolds with the structures of minimal surfaces, and notably, the influence of the surface curvature of the structure on the mechanical and mass-transport properties remains unclear. This work presents our study on the scaffolds designed with the structure of triply periodic minimal surfaces (TPMS), with a focus on discovering the influence of surface curvature on the mechanical response and the mass-transport property or permeability of the scaffolds. Based on the entropy weight fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, a model representative of both mechanical and permeable properties of scaffolds was developed; scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and finite element analysis (FEA) were also used to reveal the influence mechanism of curvature on structural fracture and deformation behavior. AlSi10Mg samples of scaffolds designed with different surface curvatures were manufactured using selective laser melting (SLM), and their mechanical and permeable properties were examined and characterized by both experiments and simulations. Our results illustrate that at the same porosity, the more concentrated the curvature distribution of the same type of unit, the better trade-off mechanical and mass-transport properties the scaffolds have. Particularly, at the porosity of 55%, the compressive elastic modulus and permeability of the Dte structure are increased by 2.03 times and 1.95 times compared with the Diamond unit, respectively. The fusion structure can greatly improve permeability performance at the cost of mechanical properties. Our results also show that porosity has the greatest influence on mechanical and permeable properties, followed by the surface curvature. The study illustrates that the surface curvature has a significant influence on the mechanical and permeable properties of scaffolds, and that the developed scaffold performance evaluation scheme is an effective means for the optimization and evaluation of scaffold performance.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Cellular and Composite Structures · Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Mechatronics Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150000, China
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N5A9, Canada
References (66)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2016.02.00910.1016/j.compositesa.2016.02.009 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.matdes.2020.10883010.1016/j.matdes.2020.108830 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.10816510.1016/j.matdes.2019.108165 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.06.04010.1016/j.actbio.2019.06.040 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.addma.2017.12.00610.1016/j.addma.2017.12.006 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.05.04610.1016/j.actbio.2019.05.046 ↗
7. 10.1038/s41598-018-23414-210.1038/s41598-018-23414-2 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.10.01110.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.10.011 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.10433210.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104332 ↗
10. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2009)135:5(439)10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2009)135:5(439) ↗
11. Chen D. X. · 2019 · 11710.1007/978-3-030-03460-3_6 ↗
12. 10.31224/osf.io/34e9h10.31224/osf.io/34e9h ↗
13. 10.1080/09205063.2016.117041510.1080/09205063.2016.1170415 ↗
14. 10.1089/3dp.2014.000610.1089/3dp.2014.0006 ↗
15. 10.1080/09205063.2018.143342010.1080/09205063.2018.1433420 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.matlet.2018.12.04910.1016/j.matlet.2018.12.049 ↗
17. 10.3390/polym1101007610.3390/polym11010076 ↗
18. 10.1089/ten.TEB.2010.057210.1089/ten.TEB.2010.0572 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.01.02210.1016/j.actbio.2014.01.022 ↗
20. 10.1142/S175882511100110X10.1142/S175882511100110X ↗
21. 10.1016/j.actbio.2016.12.00810.1016/j.actbio.2016.12.008 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.07.03510.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.07.035 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.matdes.2018.07.06410.1016/j.matdes.2018.07.064 ↗
24. 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.8b0140010.1021/acsbiomaterials.8b01400 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.00610.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.006 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.06.02110.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.06.021 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.actamat.2018.08.00510.1016/j.actamat.2018.08.005 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.bprint.2018.e0002510.1016/j.bprint.2018.e00025 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2019.04.02510.1016/j.compbiomed.2019.04.025 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.10.06410.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.10.064 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2013.12.00410.1016/j.jmatprotec.2013.12.004 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.matdes.2018.05.05810.1016/j.matdes.2018.05.058 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.medengphy.2015.08.00610.1016/j.medengphy.2015.08.006 ↗
34. 10.16731/j.cnki.1671-3133.2010.07.02610.16731/j.cnki.1671-3133.2010.07.026 ↗
35. 10.19447/j.cnki.11-1773/v.2019.03.00410.19447/j.cnki.11-1773/v.2019.03.004 ↗
36. 10.1007/s10237-009-0153-610.1007/s10237-009-0153-6 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.02.02410.1016/j.actbio.2017.02.024 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.actbio.2011.12.02110.1016/j.actbio.2011.12.021 ↗
39. 10.3969/j.issn.1004-132X.2020.12.00310.3969/j.issn.1004-132X.2020.12.003 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.polymer.2017.11.04910.1016/j.polymer.2017.11.049 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.04.00110.1016/j.actbio.2012.04.001 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.05.03810.1016/j.actbio.2020.05.038 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.04.00110.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.04.001 ↗
44. 10.1088/1758-5090/aa655310.1088/1758-5090/aa6553 ↗
45. 10.1002/jbm.b.3314610.1002/jbm.b.33146 ↗
46. 10.1007/s10237-015-0753-210.1007/s10237-015-0753-2 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.11973910.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119739 ↗
48. Lee, W. Cellular solids, structure and properties, 2000.
49. 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.06.01910.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.06.019 ↗
50. 10.1021/acsabm.8b0005210.1021/acsabm.8b00052 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.04.01410.1016/j.matdes.2017.04.014 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.04.00910.1016/j.matdes.2017.04.009 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.08.03910.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.08.039 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.10764310.1016/j.matdes.2019.107643 ↗
55. 10.1002/ar.109185010210.1002/ar.1091850102 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.msec.2016.06.01610.1016/j.msec.2016.06.016 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.matdes.2020.10875410.1016/j.matdes.2020.108754 ↗
58. Ashby M. F. · 2000
59. 10.1016/j.mattod.2013.11.01710.1016/j.mattod.2013.11.017 ↗
60. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.05.02710.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.05.027 ↗
61. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.06.02410.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.06.024 ↗
62. 10.1016/j.msea.2016.06.01310.1016/j.msea.2016.06.013 ↗
63. 10.1016/j.msea.2015.01.03110.1016/j.msea.2015.01.031 ↗
64. 10.1016/j.matdes.2018.01.05910.1016/j.matdes.2018.01.059 ↗
65. 10.1371/journal.pone.003633610.1371/journal.pone.0036336 ↗
66. 10.1002/adhm.20120015910.1002/adhm.201200159 ↗