A numerical study on mechanical and permeability properties of novel design additive manufactured Titanium based metal matrix composite bone scaffold for bone tissue engineering
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2025
A numerical study on mechanical and permeability properties of novel design additive manufactured Titanium based metal matrix composite bone scaffold for bone tissue engineering
A novel design was developed for extrusion based additive manufacturing (robocasting) of bone scaffolds and a numerical study was carried out to find the optimal design to develop a bone scaffold for critical bone defect treatments. Initially, Representative Volume Analysis (RVE) analysis was carried out to predict the Young’s modulus (E) of Titanium + Calcium Silicate and Titanium + Hydroxyapatite composites. The RVE analysis outputs were used to find out the E value of various bone scaffold designs and material compositions. The novel stepped design could be used to tailor the mechanical and biological properties of the scaffold by altering the contact support area between strands and changing the pore size, shape and orientation to control the permeability and nutrient transportation. The test revealed that some of the designed scaffolds are suitable for developing scaffolds for cortical bone defects as the E value lies between 10 and 30 GPa. The CFD analysis indicated that some designs do not possess the permeability required for a scaffold to aid nutrient transportation which is ideally between 1.5 × 10−9 and 5 × 10−8 m2. A sample model was printed and sintered in an argon atmosphere using a microwave furnace to check the feasibility of the process.
HuangRLLiuKLiQ. “Bone regeneration following the in vivo bioreactor principle: is in vitro manipulation of exogenous elements still needed?”Regen Med2016; 11(5): 475–481. DOI: 10.2217/RME-2016-0021.
2.
RenLLMaDYFengX, et al.“A novel strategy for prefabrication of large and axially vascularized tissue engineered bone by using an arteriovenous loop”. Med Hypotheses2008; 71(5): 737–740. DOI: 10.1016/J.MEHY.2008.06.032.
3.
ShibuyaNJupiterDC. “Bone Graft Substitute: Allograft and xenograft”. Clin Podiatr Med Surg2015; 32(1): 21–34. DOI: 10.1016/J.CPM.2014.09.011.
4.
SchlundMNicotRDepeyreA, et al.“Reconstruction of a large Posttraumatic mandibular defect using bone tissue engineering with fresh-frozen humeral allograft seeded with autologous bone marrow aspirate and vascularized with a radial forearm flap”. J Craniofac Surg2019; 30(7): 2085–2087. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000005980.
5.
Tahmasebi BirganiZMalhotraAYangL, et al.“1.19 calcium Phosphate ceramics with Inorganic additives”. Compr. Biomater2017; II: 406–427. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.09249-3.
6.
YangYWangGLiangH, et al.“Additive manufacturing of bone scaffolds”. Int J Bioprint2019; 5(1): 148–225. DOI: 10.18063/IJB.v5i1.148.
7.
BoseSVahabzadehSBandyopadhyayA. “Bone tissue engineering using 3D printing”. Mater Today2013; 16(12): 496–504. DOI: 10.1016/j.mattod.2013.11.017.
8.
AttarilarSEbrahimiMDjavanroodiF, et al.“3D printing Technologies in metallic implants: a Thematic review on the techniques and procedures”. Int J Bioprint2021; 7(1): 306–346. DOI: 10.18063/ijb.v7i1.306.
9.
PiliaMGudaTApplefordM. “Development of composite scaffolds for load-bearing segmental bone defects”. BioMed Res Int2013; 2013: 458253. DOI: 10.1155/2013/458253.
10.
LiLShiJZhangK, et al.“Early osteointegration evaluation of porous Ti6Al4V scaffolds designed based on triply periodic minimal surface models”. J Orthop Translat2019; 19: 94–105. DOI: 10.1016/j.jot.2019.03.003.
11.
OuyangPDongHHeX, et al.“Hydromechanical mechanism behind the effect of pore size of porous titanium scaffolds on osteoblast response and bone ingrowth”. Mater Des2019; 183: 108151. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108151.
12.
DengFLiuLLiZ, et al.“3D printed Ti6Al4V bone scaffolds with different pore structure effects on bone ingrowth”. J Biol Eng2021; 15(1): 4–13. DOI: 10.1186/s13036-021-00255-8.
13.
ClarkDNakamuraMMiclauT, et al.“Effects of aging on fracture healing”. Curr Osteoporos Rep2017; 15(6): 601–608. DOI: 10.1007/s11914-017-0413-9.
14.
Van NoortR. “Titanium: the implant material of today”. J Mater Sci1987; 22(11): 3801–3811. DOI: 10.1007/BF01133326/METRICS.
15.
ZhaoPLiuYLiT, et al.“3D printed titanium scaffolds with ordered TiO2 nanotubular surface and mesoporous bioactive glass for bone repair”. Prog. Nat. Sci. Mater. Int2020; 30(4): 502–509. DOI: 10.1016/j.pnsc.2020.08.009.
16.
TaniguchiNFujibayashiSTakemotoM, et al.“Effect of pore size on bone ingrowth into porous titanium implants fabricated by additive manufacturing: an in vivo experiment”. Mater Sci Eng C2016; 59: 690–701. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2015.10.069.
17.
GhassemiTShahroodiAEbrahimzadehMH, et al.“Current concepts in scaffolding for bone tissue engineering”. Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery2018; 6(2): 90–99. DOI: 10.22038/abjs.2018.26340.1713.
18.
LovatiABLopaSRecordatiC, et al.“In vivo bone formation within engineered hydroxyapatite scaffolds in a Sheep model”. Calcif Tissue Int2016; 99(2): 209–223. DOI: 10.1007/s00223-016-0140-8.
19.
TsaiCHHungCHKuoCN, et al.“Improved bioactivity of 3D printed porous titanium alloy scaffold with chitosan/magnesium-calcium silicate composite for orthopaedic applications”. Materials2019; 12(2): 203. DOI: 10.3390/ma12020203.
20.
WangXXuSZhouS, et al.“Topological design and additive manufacturing of porous metals for bone scaffolds and orthopaedic implants: a review”. Biomaterials2016; 83: 127–141. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.01.012.
21.
FerrettiPSantiGMLeon-CardenasC, et al.“Representative volume element (Rve) analysis for mechanical characterization of fused deposition modeled components”. Polymers2021; 13(20): 3555. DOI: 10.3390/polym13203555.
22.
ChenYZhaoYHeC, et al.“Yield and failure theory for unidirectional polymer-matrix composites”. Compos. Part B Eng2019; 164: 612–619. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.01.071.
23.
ShiCLuNQinY, et al.“Study on mechanical properties and permeability of elliptical porous scaffold based on the SLM manufactured medical Ti6Al4V”. PLoS One2021; 16: 1–17. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247764.
24.
DiasMRFernandesPRGuedesJM, et al.“Permeability analysis of scaffolds for bone tissue engineering”. J Biomech2012; 45(6): 938–944. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.01.019.
25.
GómezSVladMDLópezJ, et al.“Design and properties of 3D scaffolds for bone tissue engineering”. Acta Biomater2016; 42: 341–350. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2016.06.032.
26.
ChaoLJiaoCLiangH, et al.“Analysis of mechanical properties and permeability of Trabecular-like porous scaffold by additive manufacturing”. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2021; 9: 1–13. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.779854.
27.
WangSShiZLiuL, et al.“The design of Ti6Al4V Primitive surface structure with symmetrical gradient of pore size in biomimetic bone scaffold”. Mater Des2020; 193: 108830. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108830.
28.
OmarAMHassanMHDaskalakisE, et al.“Geometry-based computational fluid dynamic model for predicting the biological behavior of bone tissue engineering scaffolds”. J Funct Biomater2022; 13(3): 104. DOI: 10.3390/jfb13030104.
29.
KargozarSMilanPBBainoF, et al.“Chapter 2 - Nanoengineered biomaterials for bone/dental regeneration”. In: MozafariMRajadasJD B T-N B for KaplanRM (ed). Micro and Nano Technologies. Elsevier, 2019, pp. 13–38. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-813355-2.00002-8.
30.
PaterliniALe GrillSBrouilletF, et al.“Robocasting of self-setting bioceramics: from paste formulation to 3D part characteristics”. Open Ceram2021; 5: 1–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.oceram.2021.100070.
31.
Oliver-UrrutiaCKashimbetovaASlámečkaK, et al.“Robocasting additive manufacturing of titanium and titanium alloys: a review”. Trans Indian Inst Met2023; 76(2): 389–402. DOI: 10.1007/s12666-022-02755-7.
32.
Roohani-EsfahaniSINewmanPZreiqatH. “Design and Fabrication of 3D printed scaffolds with a mechanical strength comparable to cortical bone to repair large bone defects”. Sci Rep2016; 6: 19468. DOI: 10.1038/srep19468.
33.
McIntoshLCordellJMWagoner JohnsonAJ. “Impact of bone geometry on effective properties of bone scaffolds”. Acta Biomater2009; 5(2): 680–692. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2008.09.010.
34.
MirandaPPajaresAGuiberteauF. “Finite element modeling as a tool for predicting the fracture behavior of robocast scaffolds”. Acta Biomater2008; 4(6): 1715–1724. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2008.05.020.
35.
BoccaccioAUvaAEFiorentinoM, et al.“Optimal load for bone tissue scaffolds with an assigned geometry”. Int J Med Sci2018; 15(1): 16–22. DOI: 10.7150/ijms.20522.
36.
BoccaccioAUvaAEFiorentinoM, et al.“Geometry design optimization of functionally graded scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: a mechanobiological approach”. PLoS One2016; 11(1): e0146935. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146935.
37.
WangSLiuLLiK, et al.“Pore functionally graded Ti6Al4V scaffolds for bone tissue engineering application”. Mater Des2019; 168: 107643. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.107643.
38.
GöttlicherBSchweizerhofK. “Analysis of flexible structures with occasionally rigid parts under transient loading”. Comput Struct2005; 83(25): 2035–2051. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2005.03.007.
39.
WalpoleSCPrieto-MerinoDEdwardsP, et al.“The weight of nations: an estimation of adult human biomass”. BMC Public Health2012; 12(1): 439. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-439.
40.
McCoyRJO’BrienFJ. “Influence of shear stress in perfusion bioreactor cultures for the development of three-dimensional bone tissue constructs: a review”. Tissue Eng Part B Rev2010; 16(6): 587–601. DOI: 10.1089/ten.teb.2010.0370.
41.
VetschJRBettsDCMüllerR, et al.“Flow velocity-driven differentiation of human mesenchymal stromal cells in silk fibroin scaffolds: a combined experimental and computational approach”. PLoS One2017; 12(7): 1–17. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180781.
42.
ShiCLuNQinY, et al.“Study on mechanical properties and permeability of elliptical porous scaffold based on the SLM manufactured medical Ti6Al4V”. PLoS One2021; 16(3): e0247764. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247764.
43.
LiuLWangSLiuJ, et al.“Architectural design of Ti6Al4V scaffold controls the osteogenic volume and application area of the scaffold”. J Mater Res Technol2020; 9(6): 15849–15861. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.11.061.
44.
YuCCaoPJonesMI. “Titanium powder sintering in a graphite furnace and mechanical properties of sintered parts”. Metals2017; 7(2): 67. DOI: 10.3390/met7020067.
45.
LuoSDYanMSchafferGB, et al.“Sintering of titanium in vacuum by microwave radiation”. Metall Mater Trans A2011; 42(8): 2466–2474. DOI: 10.1007/s11661-011-0645-8.
46.
LuoSDQianMAshraf ImamM. Microwave sintering of titanium and titanium alloys. Elsevier Inc., 2015. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800054-0.00014-9.
GeethaMSinghAKAsokamaniR, et al.“Ti based biomaterials, the ultimate choice for orthopaedic implants – a review”. Prog Mater Sci2009; 54(3): 397–425. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2008.06.004.
49.
ZhaoSArnoldMMaS, et al.“Standardizing compression testing for measuring the stiffness of human bone”. Bone Joint Res2018; 7(8): 524–538. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.78.BJR-2018-0025.R1.
50.
VajgelACamargoIBWillmersdorfRB, et al.“Comparative finite element analysis of the biomechanical stability of 2.0 fixation plates in atrophic mandibular fractures”. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2013; 71(2): 335–342. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2012.09.019.
51.
WarwickJLWJonesNGRahmanKM, et al.“Lattice strain evolution during tensile and compressive loading of CP Ti”. Acta Mater2012; 60(19): 6720–6731. DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2012.08.042.
52.
ForoughiAHRazaviMJ. “Multi-objective shape optimization of bone scaffolds: Enhancement of mechanical properties and permeability”. Acta Biomater2022; 146: 317–340. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.04.051.
53.
NaumanEAFongKEKeavenyTM. “Dependence of Intertrabecular permeability on flow direction and Anatomic site”. Ann Biomed Eng1999; 27(4): 517–524. DOI: 10.1114/1.195.
54.
KumarRTiwariAKTripathiD, et al.“Anatomical variations in cortical bone surface permeability: Tibia versus femur”. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2021; 113: 104122. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.104122.
55.
OchoaISanz-HerreraJAGarcía-AznarJM, et al.“Permeability evaluation of 45S5 Bioglass®-based scaffolds for bone tissue engineering”. J Biomech2009; 42(3): 257–260. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.10.030.
PengWZengWZhangY, et al.“The effect of colored titanium oxides on the color change on the surface of Ti-5Al-5Mo-5V-1Cr-1Fe alloy”. J Mater Eng Perform2013; 22(9): 2588–2593. DOI: 10.1007/s11665-013-0573-4.
58.
RaganyaMLMoshokoaNMObadeleB, et al.“The microstructural and mechanical characterization of the β-type Ti-11.1Mo-10.8Nb alloy for biomedical applications”. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng2019; 655(1): 012025. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/655/1/012025.
59.
BarabashkoMPonomarevARezvanovaA, et al.“Young’s modulus and Vickers Hardness of the hydroxyapatite bioceramics with a small Amount of the multi-walled carbon nanotubes”. Materials2022; 15(15): 5304. DOI: 10.3390/ma15155304.
60.
ShiraziFSMehraliMOshkourAA, et al.“Mechanical and physical properties of calcium silicate/alumina composite for biomedical engineering applications”. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2014; 30: 168–175. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.10.024.
61.
HaiqiL. “Thermodynamic, mechanical and Electronic structure properties of Wollastonite with different Crystal Forms”. Journal of Materials, Processing and Design. 2021; 5(1): 76–79. DOI: 10.23977/jmpd.2021.050116.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
