Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Note on the use of different approaches to determine the pore sizes of tissue engineering scaffolds: what do we measure

M. Bartoš, T. Suchý, R. Foltán,

. 2018 ; 17 (1) : 110. [pub] 20180817

Language English Country England, Great Britain

Document type Journal Article

Grant support
NV15-25813A MZ0 CEP Register

BACKGROUND: Collagen-based scaffolds provide a promising option for the treatment of bone defects. One of the key parameters of such scaffolds consists of porosity, including pore size. However, to date, no agreement has been found with respect to the methodology for pore size evaluation. Since the determination of the exact pore size value is not possible, the comparison of the various methods applied is complicated. Hence, this study focuses on the comparison of two widely-used methods for the characterization of porosity-scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). METHODS: 7 types of collagen-based composite scaffold models were prepared by means of lyophilization and collagen cross-linking. Micro-CT analysis was performed in 3D and in 2D (pore size parameters were: major diameter, mean thickness, biggest inner circle diameter and area-equivalent circle diameter). Afterwards, pore sizes were analyzed in the same specimens by an image analysis of SEM microphotographs. The results were statistically evaluated. The comparison of the various approaches to the evaluation of pore size was based on coefficients of variance and the semi-quantitative assessment of selected qualities (e.g. the potential for direct 3D analysis, whole specimen analysis, non-destructivity). RESULTS: The pore size values differed significantly with respect to the parameters applied. Median values of pore size values were ranging from 20 to 490 µm. The SEM values were approximately 3 times higher than micro-CT 3D values for each specimen. The Mean thickness was the most advantageous micro-CT 2D approach. Coefficient of variance revealed no differences among pore size parameters (except major diameter). The semi-quantitative comparison approach presented pore size parameters in descending order with regard to the advantages thereof as follows: (1) micro-CT 3D, (2) mean thickness and SEM, (3) biggest inner circle diameter, major diameter and area equivalent circle diameter. CONCLUSION: The results indicated that micro-CT 3D evaluation provides the most beneficial overall approach. Micro-CT 2D analysis (mean thickness) is advantageous in terms of its time efficacy. SEM is still considered as gold standard for its widespread use and high resolution. However, exact comparison of pore size analysis in scaffold materials remains a challenge.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc19000443
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20201015141044.0
007      
ta
008      
190107s2018 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1186/s12938-018-0543-z $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)30119672
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Bartoš, Martin $u Institute of Dental Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Kateřinská 32, 128 01, Prague 2, Czech Republic. martin.bartos@lf1.cuni.cz. Institute of Pathological Physiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague 2, Czech Republic. martin.bartos@lf1.cuni.cz. Institute of Anatomy, First Faculty of Medicine. Charles University, Prague 2, Czech Republic. martin.bartos@lf1.cuni.cz.
245    10
$a Note on the use of different approaches to determine the pore sizes of tissue engineering scaffolds: what do we measure / $c M. Bartoš, T. Suchý, R. Foltán,
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Collagen-based scaffolds provide a promising option for the treatment of bone defects. One of the key parameters of such scaffolds consists of porosity, including pore size. However, to date, no agreement has been found with respect to the methodology for pore size evaluation. Since the determination of the exact pore size value is not possible, the comparison of the various methods applied is complicated. Hence, this study focuses on the comparison of two widely-used methods for the characterization of porosity-scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). METHODS: 7 types of collagen-based composite scaffold models were prepared by means of lyophilization and collagen cross-linking. Micro-CT analysis was performed in 3D and in 2D (pore size parameters were: major diameter, mean thickness, biggest inner circle diameter and area-equivalent circle diameter). Afterwards, pore sizes were analyzed in the same specimens by an image analysis of SEM microphotographs. The results were statistically evaluated. The comparison of the various approaches to the evaluation of pore size was based on coefficients of variance and the semi-quantitative assessment of selected qualities (e.g. the potential for direct 3D analysis, whole specimen analysis, non-destructivity). RESULTS: The pore size values differed significantly with respect to the parameters applied. Median values of pore size values were ranging from 20 to 490 µm. The SEM values were approximately 3 times higher than micro-CT 3D values for each specimen. The Mean thickness was the most advantageous micro-CT 2D approach. Coefficient of variance revealed no differences among pore size parameters (except major diameter). The semi-quantitative comparison approach presented pore size parameters in descending order with regard to the advantages thereof as follows: (1) micro-CT 3D, (2) mean thickness and SEM, (3) biggest inner circle diameter, major diameter and area equivalent circle diameter. CONCLUSION: The results indicated that micro-CT 3D evaluation provides the most beneficial overall approach. Micro-CT 2D analysis (mean thickness) is advantageous in terms of its time efficacy. SEM is still considered as gold standard for its widespread use and high resolution. However, exact comparison of pore size analysis in scaffold materials remains a challenge.
650    _2
$a kolagen $x chemie $7 D003094
650    _2
$a poréznost $7 D016062
650    12
$a tkáňové inženýrství $7 D023822
650    12
$a tkáňové podpůrné struktury $7 D054457
650    _2
$a rentgenová mikrotomografie $7 D055114
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Suchý, Tomáš $u Department of Composites and Carbon Materials, Institute of Rock Structure and Mechanics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague 8, Czech Republic. Department of Mechanics, Biomechanics and Mechatronics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague 6, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Foltán, René $u Institute of Dental Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Kateřinská 32, 128 01, Prague 2, Czech Republic.
773    0_
$w MED00008166 $t Biomedical engineering online $x 1475-925X $g Roč. 17, č. 1 (2018), s. 110
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30119672 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20190107 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20201015141041 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1364526 $s 1038566
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2018 $b 17 $c 1 $d 110 $e 20180817 $i 1475-925X $m Biomedical engineering online $n Biomed Eng Online $x MED00008166
GRA    __
$a NV15-25813A $p MZ0
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20190107

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...