4.5 Article

Permeability and fluid flow-induced wall shear stress in bone scaffolds with TPMS and lattice architectures: A CFD analysis

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MECHANICS B-FLUIDS
Volume 79, Issue -, Pages 376-385

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.euromechflu.2019.09.015

Keywords

Bone scaffolds; Permeability; Wall shear stress; Minimal surface architectures; Lattice-based architectures

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fluid flow dynamics within porous scaffolds for tissue engineering play a critical role in the transport of fundamental materials to the cells and in controlling the biocompatibility of the scaffold. Properties such as permeability and fluid flow-induced wall shear stress characterize the biological behavior of the scaffolds. Bioactivity depends on the diffusion of oxygen and other nutritious elements through the porous medium and fluid flow-induced shear stress is known as the dominant mechanical stimulant of cell differentiation and proliferation within the scaffolds. In this study, eight different bone scaffold models with a constant porosity of 80% were designed computationally using the TPMS and lattice-based structures. We investigated the fluid flow within the scaffolds using CFD analysis. The results of the work showed that scaffold architecture has a significant impact on the permeability and that scaffold permeability can vary up to three times depending on the architecture. The scaffolds with the minimal variation in their channel size exhibited the highest permeability. We investigated the distribution statistics of wall shear stress on the walls of the scaffolds and showed that a correlation between the architecture of the scaffolds and the distribution statistics of wall shear stress did not exist. The outcomings of this work can be promising in designing better scaffolds in tissue engineering from a biological point of view. (C) 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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