journal article·2016-07Open access

Bone Structural Similarity Score: A Multiparametric Tool to Match Properties of Biomimetic Bone Substitutes with their Target Tissues

Giuseppe Falvo D'Urso Labate, Francesco Baino, Mara Terzini, Alberto Audenino, Chiara Vitale-Brovarone, Patrick Segers, Rodolfo Quarto, Gerardo Catapano

Abstract

Background One of the hardest tasks in developing or selecting grafts for bone substitution surgery or tissue engineering is to match the structural and mechanical properties of tissue at the recipient site, because of the large variability of tissue properties with anatomical site, sex, age and health conditions of the patient undergoing implantation. We investigated the feasibility of defining a quantitative bone structural similarity score based on differences in the structural properties of synthetic grafts and bone tissue. Methods Two biocompatible hydroxyapatite porous scaffolds with different nominal pore sizes were compared with trabecular bone tissues from equine humerus and femur. Images of samples’ structures were acquired by high-resolution micro-computed tomography and analyzed to estimate porosity, pore size distribution and interconnectivity, specific surface area, connectivity density and degree of anisotropy. Young's modulus and stress at break were measured by compression tests. Structural similarity distances between sample pairs were defined based on scaled and weighted differences of the measured properties. Their feasibility was investigated for scoring structural similarity between considered scaffolds or bone tissues. Results Manhattan distances and Quadrance generally showed sound and consistent similarities between sample pairs, more clearly than simple statistical comparison and with discriminating capacity similar to image-based scores to assess progression of pathologies affecting bone structure. Conclusions The results suggest that a quantitative and objective bone structural similarity score may be defined to help biomaterials scientists fabricate, and surgeons select, the graft or scaffold best mimicking the structure of a given bone tissue.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Bone health and osteoporosis research · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Environmental and Chemical Engineering, University of Calabria, Rende, Cosenza - Italy

IBiTech–bioMMeda, Department of Electronics and Information Systems, iMinds Medical IT, Ghent University, Gent - Belgium

Department of Applied Science and Technology, Politecnico di Torino, Torino - Italy

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Torino - Italy

Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Genova, Genova - Italy

References (65)

Show source-provided references
1. JahangirAA NunleyRM MehtaS SharanA Bone-graft substitutes in orthopedic surgery. AAOS. http://www.aaos.org/AAOSNow/2008/Jan/reimbursement/reimbursement2/. Accessed December 3, 2015.
2. 10.1016/S0901-5027(03)00199-110.1016/S0901-5027(03)00199-1 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.orthres.2004.12.00410.1016/j.orthres.2004.12.004 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.03.00810.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.03.008 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.injury.2011.06.01410.1016/j.injury.2011.06.014 ↗
6. 10.1186/1749-799X-9-1810.1186/1749-799X-9-18 ↗
7. 10.1002/jbm.b.3300510.1002/jbm.b.33005 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.00210.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.02.002 ↗
9. 10.1155/2014/86527010.1155/2014/865270 ↗
10. 10.2106/00004623-197658010-0001510.2106/00004623-197658010-00015 ↗
11. Kim JE · The three-dimensional microstructure of trabecular bone: Analysis of site-specific variation in the human jaw bone. Imaging Sci Dent · 2013 · 43 · 227
12. 10.1016/j.bone.2013.12.01910.1016/j.bone.2013.12.019 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.11.01410.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.11.014 ↗
14. Silva BC · Trabecular Bone Score: a noninvasive analytical method based upon the DXA image. J Bone Miner Res · 2014 · 29 · 518
15. 10.1007/s11517-006-0071-z10.1007/s11517-006-0071-z ↗
16. 10.1109/83.86918710.1109/83.869187 ↗
17. 10.1302/0301-620X.82B6.082091010.1302/0301-620X.82B6.0820910 ↗
18. Odgaard A
19. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.06.02410.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.06.024 ↗
20. Pennella F · A survey of methods for the evaluation of tissue engineering scaffold permeability. Ann Biomed Eng · 2013 · 41 · 2027
21. Moore MJ · Quantitative analysis of interconnectivity of porous biodegradable scaffolds with micro-computed tomography. J Biomed Mater Res A · 2004 · 71 · 258
22. BrukermicroCT CT-Analyser version 1.13: the user's guide. 2013 Bruker.
23. 10.1016/j.jvcir.2006.05.00110.1016/j.jvcir.2006.05.001 ↗
24. Follet H · Relationship between compressive properties of human os calcis cancellous bone and microarchitecture assessed from 2D and 3D synchrotron microtomography. Bone · 2005 · 36 · 340
25. Symons JE · Mechanical and morphological properties of trabecular bone samples obtained from third metacarpal bones of cadavers of horses with a bone fragility syndrome and horses unaffected by that syndrome. AJVR · 2012 · 73 · 1742
26. Razali NM · JOSMA · 2011 · 2 · 21
27. SAS/STAT user's guide, version 8, vol. 2, CARY, NC, USA; SAS Institute; 1999.
28. KenneyJF KeepingES Mathematics of statistics: Pt. I. 3 rd ed. Princeton, NJ Van Nostrand 1954.
29. 10.2307/364433910.2307/3644339 ↗
30. Flury BK · Am Stat · 1986 · 40 · 24910.1080/00031305.1986.10475403 ↗
31. Craw S
32. WildbergerNJ Divine proportions: rational trigonometry to universal geometry. Sidney, Australia Wild Eggs Books 2005.
33. 10.1016/j.jocd.2011.05.00510.1016/j.jocd.2011.05.005 ↗
34. 10.1038/nmat142110.1038/nmat1421 ↗
35. 10.1038/nmat339210.1038/nmat3392 ↗
36. 10.1038/nmat234410.1038/nmat2344 ↗
37. 10.1038/nmat257710.1038/nmat2577 ↗
38. Puleo DA · New York: Springer-Verlag · 2009
39. 10.1016/S0142-9612(97)00180-410.1016/S0142-9612(97)00180-4 ↗
40. 10.1089/10763270175333764510.1089/107632701753337645 ↗
41. 10.1002/jbm.82023070810.1002/jbm.820230708 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.actbio.2005.12.00710.1016/j.actbio.2005.12.007 ↗
43. Suh SW · Effect of different particles on cell proliferation in polymer scaffolds using a solvent-casting and particulate leaching technique. ASAIO J · 2002 · 48 · 460
44. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.02.05210.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.02.052 ↗
45. 10.1016/S0736-0266(01)00132-210.1016/S0736-0266(01)00132-2 ↗
46. 10.1002/adma.20080131910.1002/adma.200801319 ↗
47. 10.1039/c0ib00095g10.1039/c0ib00095g ↗
48. Lee CH · Nanofiber alignment and direction of mechanical strain affect the ECM production of human ACL fibroblast. Biomaterials · 2005 · 26 · 1262
49. 10.1016/S0021-9290(00)00110-X10.1016/S0021-9290(00)00110-X ↗
50. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.09.00310.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.09.003 ↗
51. 10.1126/science.111699510.1126/science.1116995 ↗
52. Yeung H · New York: Springer · 2007 · 289
53. 10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.04410.1016/j.cell.2006.06.044 ↗
54. 10.1016/S1350-4533(98)00063-010.1016/S1350-4533(98)00063-0 ↗
55. 10.1016/0021-9290(94)90019-110.1016/0021-9290(94)90019-1 ↗
56. 10.1016/0021-9290(90)90003-L10.1016/0021-9290(90)90003-L ↗
57. Jang D · ASAIO J · 2014 · 216
58. 10.1166/jbt.2013.109310.1166/jbt.2013.1093 ↗
59. Ryan TM · Proc R Soc B · 1758 · 2013 · 20130172
60. 10.1098/rsif.2008.0425.focus10.1098/rsif.2008.0425.focus ↗
61. 10.1002/pssa.20062223710.1002/pssa.200622237 ↗
62. Van Lieshout EM · BMC Musculoskelet Disord · 2011 · 12 · 1
63. 10.1016/S0736-0266(02)00157-210.1016/S0736-0266(02)00157-2 ↗
64. Shikinami Y · Bioactive and bioresorbable cellular cubic-composite scaffolds for use in bone reconstruction. J R Soc Interface · 2005 · 3 · 805
65. 10.1089/ten.teb.2013.068210.1089/ten.teb.2013.0682 ↗