4.6 Article

Effect of pore geometry on the fatigue properties and cell affinity of porous titanium scaffolds fabricated by selective laser melting

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.08.048

关键词

Porous titanium scaffold; Selective laser melting; Pore geometry; Fatigue property; Cell affinity

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51775207, 81300920]
  2. Academic Frontier Youth Team at Huazhong University of Science and Technology
  3. National Key Research and Development Plan, Additive Manufacturing and Laser Manufacturing Key Special Subject of Chain (personalized implant prosthesis additive manufacturing process research) [2016YFB1101303]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Porous titanium scaffolds with different unit cell type (tetrahedron and octahedron) and pore size (500 pin and 1000 gm) were fabricated by selective laser melting (SLM), and the effects of unit cell type and pore size on their fatigue properties and cell affinity were studied. The fatigue properties were performed by static and dynamic mechanical testing, while the cell affinity was evaluated in vitro with mouse osteoblast cells. It was found that octahedron scaffolds exhibited superior static mechanical properties, longer fatigue lives and higher fatigue strength in comparison to those of tetrahedron ones. As expected, scaffolds with 1000 gm pore resulted in lower compressive properties and shorter fatigue lives compared to those with 500 sm pore. The differences were analyzed based on the unit cell structure, porosity, and manufacturing imperfections. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and immunofluorescence showed that cells spread better on octahedron scaffolds than those on tetrahedron ones. Meanwhile, the scaffolds with 1000 mu m pore were more suitable for cell attachment and growth within the same unit cell owing to higher porosity. The comparison of different pore geometry on the mechanical and biological property provided further insight into designing an optimal porous scaffold.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据