Schwarz Primitive网固和片固结构的流动分析比较。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Derya Karaman, Hojjat Ghahramanzadeh Asl
{"title":"Schwarz Primitive网固和片固结构的流动分析比较。","authors":"Derya Karaman, Hojjat Ghahramanzadeh Asl","doi":"10.1177/09544119251348696","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Scaffolds developed from Triply Periodic Minimal Surface (TPMS) structures effectively mimic the geometric, mechanical, and fluid transport characteristics of human bones. These porous architectures facilitate fluid flow and augment bone cell adhesion and proliferation through their substantial surface area. In this study, the potential of network solid and sheet solid TPMS scaffolds with the same Schwarz Primitive architecture was compared for bone regeneration. Both types were modeled at 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% porosity. A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis was conducted to assess parameters such as surface area, pore size, permeability, wall shear stress, and flow rate. These parameters are known to exert a significant influence on the behavior of bone cells. The results demonstrated that network solids exhibited enhanced permeability and augmented pore sizes, thereby facilitating cell migration and nutrient delivery. Conversely, sheet solids exhibited elevated surface areas, thereby fostering cell adhesion and proliferation. Despite exhibiting equivalent porosity, the two structures manifested discernible disparities in geometry and flow performance. Network solid structures generally provided more favorable conditions for fluid flow and mechanical stimulation. Nevertheless, the selection of network or sheet architectures should be informed by specific clinical needs and tissue requirements. The findings demonstrate that architectural differences significantly affect scaffold performance, and understanding these effects can help optimize scaffold design for bone tissue engineering applications.</p>","PeriodicalId":20666,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"676-686"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Flow analysis comparison of network solid and sheet solid structures for Schwarz Primitive.\",\"authors\":\"Derya Karaman, Hojjat Ghahramanzadeh Asl\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09544119251348696\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Scaffolds developed from Triply Periodic Minimal Surface (TPMS) structures effectively mimic the geometric, mechanical, and fluid transport characteristics of human bones. These porous architectures facilitate fluid flow and augment bone cell adhesion and proliferation through their substantial surface area. In this study, the potential of network solid and sheet solid TPMS scaffolds with the same Schwarz Primitive architecture was compared for bone regeneration. Both types were modeled at 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% porosity. A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis was conducted to assess parameters such as surface area, pore size, permeability, wall shear stress, and flow rate. These parameters are known to exert a significant influence on the behavior of bone cells. The results demonstrated that network solids exhibited enhanced permeability and augmented pore sizes, thereby facilitating cell migration and nutrient delivery. Conversely, sheet solids exhibited elevated surface areas, thereby fostering cell adhesion and proliferation. Despite exhibiting equivalent porosity, the two structures manifested discernible disparities in geometry and flow performance. Network solid structures generally provided more favorable conditions for fluid flow and mechanical stimulation. Nevertheless, the selection of network or sheet architectures should be informed by specific clinical needs and tissue requirements. The findings demonstrate that architectural differences significantly affect scaffold performance, and understanding these effects can help optimize scaffold design for bone tissue engineering applications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20666,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"676-686\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09544119251348696\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09544119251348696","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由三周期最小表面(TPMS)结构发展而来的支架有效地模拟了人类骨骼的几何、力学和流体输送特性。这些多孔结构通过其巨大的表面积促进流体流动,增强骨细胞的粘附和增殖。本研究比较了具有相同Schwarz Primitive结构的网状实体和片状实体TPMS支架在骨再生方面的潜力。两种类型的孔隙度分别为50%、60%、70%和80%。计算流体动力学(CFD)分析评估了诸如表面积、孔径、渗透率、壁面剪切应力和流速等参数。已知这些参数对骨细胞的行为有重要影响。结果表明,网状固体具有增强的渗透性和增大的孔径,从而促进细胞迁移和养分输送。相反,片状固体表现出升高的表面积,从而促进细胞粘附和增殖。尽管具有相同的孔隙度,但两种结构在几何形状和流动性能上表现出明显的差异。网状固体结构通常为流体流动和机械增产提供了更有利的条件。然而,网络或薄片结构的选择应根据具体的临床需要和组织要求。研究结果表明,结构差异显著影响支架性能,了解这些影响有助于优化骨组织工程应用的支架设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Flow analysis comparison of network solid and sheet solid structures for Schwarz Primitive.

Scaffolds developed from Triply Periodic Minimal Surface (TPMS) structures effectively mimic the geometric, mechanical, and fluid transport characteristics of human bones. These porous architectures facilitate fluid flow and augment bone cell adhesion and proliferation through their substantial surface area. In this study, the potential of network solid and sheet solid TPMS scaffolds with the same Schwarz Primitive architecture was compared for bone regeneration. Both types were modeled at 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% porosity. A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis was conducted to assess parameters such as surface area, pore size, permeability, wall shear stress, and flow rate. These parameters are known to exert a significant influence on the behavior of bone cells. The results demonstrated that network solids exhibited enhanced permeability and augmented pore sizes, thereby facilitating cell migration and nutrient delivery. Conversely, sheet solids exhibited elevated surface areas, thereby fostering cell adhesion and proliferation. Despite exhibiting equivalent porosity, the two structures manifested discernible disparities in geometry and flow performance. Network solid structures generally provided more favorable conditions for fluid flow and mechanical stimulation. Nevertheless, the selection of network or sheet architectures should be informed by specific clinical needs and tissue requirements. The findings demonstrate that architectural differences significantly affect scaffold performance, and understanding these effects can help optimize scaffold design for bone tissue engineering applications.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
122
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Engineering in Medicine is an interdisciplinary journal encompassing all aspects of engineering in medicine. The Journal is a vital tool for maintaining an understanding of the newest techniques and research in medical engineering.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信