-
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,
Language English Country England, Great Britain
Document type Journal Article
Grant support
NV15-25813A
MZ0
CEP Register
Digital library NLK
Full text - Article
Source
NLK
BioMedCentral
from 2002-12-01
BioMedCentral Open Access
from 2002
Directory of Open Access Journals
from 2002
Free Medical Journals
from 2002
Freely Accessible Science Journals
from 2002
PubMed Central
from 2002
Europe PubMed Central
from 2002
ProQuest Central
from 2009-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2002-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2002-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2002-05-01
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 2002-05-14
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 2009-01-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
from 2002
Springer Nature OA/Free Journals
from 2002-12-01
- MeSH
- Collagen chemistry MeSH
- Porosity MeSH
- X-Ray Microtomography MeSH
- Tissue Engineering * MeSH
- Tissue Scaffolds * MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
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