How well do 3D-printed tissue mimics represent the complex mechanics of biological soft tissues? An example study with Stratasys' cardiovascular TissueMatrix materials.

Grace N Bechtel, Colton J Kostelnik, Manuel K Rausch
{"title":"How well do 3D-printed tissue mimics represent the complex mechanics of biological soft tissues? An example study with Stratasys' cardiovascular TissueMatrix materials.","authors":"Grace N Bechtel, Colton J Kostelnik, Manuel K Rausch","doi":"10.1002/jbm.a.37787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Tissue mimicking materials are designed to represent real tissue in applications such as medical device testing and surgical training. Thanks to progress in 3D-printing technology, tissue mimics can now be easily cast into arbitrary geometries and manufactured with adjustable material properties to mimic a wide variety of tissue types. However, it is unclear how well 3D-printable mimics represent real tissues and their mechanics. The objective of this work is to fill this knowledge gap using the Stratasys Digital Anatomy 3D-Printer as an example. To this end, we created mimics of biological tissues we previously tested in our laboratory: blood clots, myocardium, and tricuspid valve leaflets. We printed each tissue mimic to have the identical geometry to its biological counterpart and tested the samples using identical protocols. In our evaluation, we focused on the stiffness of the tissues and their fracture toughness in the case of blood clots. We found that the mechanical behavior of the tissue mimics often differed substantially from the biological tissues they aim to represent. Qualitatively, tissue mimics failed to replicate the traditional strain-stiffening behavior of soft tissues. Quantitatively, tissue mimics were stiffer than their biological counterparts, especially at small strains, in some cases by orders of magnitude. In those materials in which we tested toughness, we found that tissue mimicking materials were also much tougher than their biological counterparts. Thus, our work highlights limitations of at least one 3D-printing technology in its ability to mimic the mechanical properties of biological tissues. Therefore, care should be taken when using this technology, especially where tissue mimicking materials are expected to represent soft tissue properties quantitatively. Whether other technologies fare better remains to be seen.</p>","PeriodicalId":94066,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.37787","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Tissue mimicking materials are designed to represent real tissue in applications such as medical device testing and surgical training. Thanks to progress in 3D-printing technology, tissue mimics can now be easily cast into arbitrary geometries and manufactured with adjustable material properties to mimic a wide variety of tissue types. However, it is unclear how well 3D-printable mimics represent real tissues and their mechanics. The objective of this work is to fill this knowledge gap using the Stratasys Digital Anatomy 3D-Printer as an example. To this end, we created mimics of biological tissues we previously tested in our laboratory: blood clots, myocardium, and tricuspid valve leaflets. We printed each tissue mimic to have the identical geometry to its biological counterpart and tested the samples using identical protocols. In our evaluation, we focused on the stiffness of the tissues and their fracture toughness in the case of blood clots. We found that the mechanical behavior of the tissue mimics often differed substantially from the biological tissues they aim to represent. Qualitatively, tissue mimics failed to replicate the traditional strain-stiffening behavior of soft tissues. Quantitatively, tissue mimics were stiffer than their biological counterparts, especially at small strains, in some cases by orders of magnitude. In those materials in which we tested toughness, we found that tissue mimicking materials were also much tougher than their biological counterparts. Thus, our work highlights limitations of at least one 3D-printing technology in its ability to mimic the mechanical properties of biological tissues. Therefore, care should be taken when using this technology, especially where tissue mimicking materials are expected to represent soft tissue properties quantitatively. Whether other technologies fare better remains to be seen.

三维打印的组织模拟材料能多好地表现生物软组织的复杂力学?以 Stratasys 的心血管 TissueMatrix 材料为例进行研究。
组织模拟材料旨在代表医疗设备测试和手术培训等应用中的真实组织。由于三维打印技术的进步,组织模拟材料现在可以很容易地浇铸成任意几何形状,并通过可调节的材料特性来模拟各种类型的组织。然而,目前还不清楚可三维打印的模拟组织在多大程度上代表了真实组织及其力学。这项工作的目的是以 Stratasys 数字解剖三维打印机为例,填补这一知识空白。为此,我们创建了之前在实验室中测试过的生物组织模拟物:血块、心肌和三尖瓣叶。我们打印出的每个仿生组织都具有与其生物对应物相同的几何形状,并使用相同的方案对样本进行了测试。在评估中,我们重点关注了组织的刚度和血块的断裂韧性。我们发现,组织模拟物的机械行为往往与它们所代表的生物组织有很大不同。从质量上看,组织模拟物无法复制软组织的传统应变-刚性行为。从数量上看,组织模拟物比其生物对应物更坚硬,尤其是在小应变时,在某些情况下甚至达到了数量级。在测试韧性的材料中,我们发现组织模拟材料的韧性也远高于生物材料。因此,我们的工作凸显了至少一种三维打印技术在模拟生物组织机械性能方面的局限性。因此,在使用这种技术时应小心谨慎,尤其是当组织模拟材料有望定量代表软组织特性时。其他技术是否会有更好的表现还有待观察。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信