4.5 Article

Flow rates in perfusion bioreactors to maximise mineralisation in bone tissue engineering in vitro

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
Volume 79, Issue -, Pages 232-237

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.08.004

Keywords

Computational fluid dynamics; wall shear stress; mechanical stimulation; bone tissue mineralisation

Funding

  1. EU [336043]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In bone tissue engineering experiments, fluid-induced shear stress is able to stimulate cells to produce mineralised extracellular matrix (ECM). The application of shear stress on seeded cells can for example be achieved through bioreactors that perfuse medium through porous scaffolds. The generated mechanical environment (i.e. wall shear stress: WSS) within the scaffolds is complex due to the complexity of scaffold geometry. This complexity has so far prevented setting an optimal loading (i.e. flow rate) of the bioreactor to achieve an optimal distribution of WSS for stimulating cells to produce mineralised ECM. In this study, we demonstrate an approach combining computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and mechano-regulation theory to optimise flow rates of a perfusion bioreactor and various scaffold geometries (i.e. pore shape, porosity and pore diameter) in order to maximise shear stress induced mineralisation. The optimal flow rates, under which the highest fraction of scaffold surface area is subjected to a wall shear stress that induces mineralisation, are mainly dependent on the scaffold geometries. Nevertheless, the variation range of such optimal flow rates are within 0.5-5 mL/min (or in terms of fluid velocity: 0.166-1.66 mm/s), among different scaffolds. This approach can facilitate the determination of scaffold-dependent flow rates for bone tissue engineering experiments in vitro, avoiding performing a series of trial and error experiments. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available