4.7 Article

Structural design and performance study of primitive triply periodic minimal surfaces Ti6Al4V biomimetic scaffold

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-17066-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Qinghai Province [2020-ZJ953Q]
  2. Innovation and Entrepreneurship training Program of Qinghai Minzu University [DCXM-202227]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Qinghai Minzu University [2022GH12]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper comprehensively evaluates the static mechanical properties, permeability, and cell adhesion effect of Ti6Al4V bionic scaffolds with different axial diameter ratios using numerical simulation and experiments. The results show that the scaffold with a non-1:1 axial diameter ratio has more advantages than the ordinary uniform scaffold structure with a 1:1 axial diameter ratio, which is of great significance for the optimal design of scaffolds.
This paper comprehensively evaluated the static mechanical compressive properties, permeability, and cell adhesion effect on the inner wall of the Primitive triply periodic minimal surface Ti6Al4V bionic scaffolds with different axial diameter ratios through numerical simulation and experiments. The results show that when the axial diameter ratio is 1:2, the elastic modulus of the scaffold is about 1.25 and the yield strength is about 1.36. The scaffold's longitudinal and transverse mechanical properties align with human bone tissue. Its permeability is also better than that of circular pores. The scaffold with an axial diameter ratio of 1:3 has the best permeability, ranging from 1.28e-8 to 1.60e-8 m(2), which is more conducive to the adsorption of cells on the inner wall of the scaffold. These results show that the scaffold structure with an axial diameter ratio of not 1:1 has more advantages than the ordinary uniform scaffold structure with an axial diameter ratio of 1:1. This is of great significance to the optimal design of 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

4.7
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