Thesis or Fecis

It all comes down to this…

24 – Chapter 2: Background (Part I)

leave a comment »

The inability of bone to regenerate itself in cases of gross trauma poses a problem still unsolved. The complexity of bone tissue itself is compounded by the requirement that it provide structural support for the patient. Successful treatment should stimulate new bone growth resulting, at the end state, in native bone tissue with no trace of the regenerative device. Bone scaffolds have shown promise in regenerating some critical size defects in non-load bearing anatomic sites but results vary with anatomy and species [1]. Additionally, problems arise in load bearing sites where the scaffold must endure a modicum of mechanical loading. Success requires insight into the mechanisms that dictate bone growth as well as thorough characterization of the intended implanted scaffold. Currently, research has begun to characterize input parameters such as architecture, porosity, permeability and their effect on the resulting tissue ingrowth [2, 3]. The use of techniques such as Computer Aided Tissue Engineering (CATE) may in the future promote the regeneration of a functional bone system where a defect once lay [4]. The following sections will illustrate the importance of structure for function in nature and more specifically in bone. The subsequent architectural discussion will be framed in the effects of specific parameters of architecture and the past work that has attempted to incorporate these concepts into scaffold design.



1. Liebschner, M.A., Biomechanical considerations of animal models used in tissue engineering of bone. Biomaterials, 2004. 25(9): p. 1697-714.

2. Li, S.H., et al., Accurate geometric characterization of macroporous scaffold of tissue engineering. Key Engineering Materials, 2003. 240-242: p. 541-546.

3. Hollister, S.J., et al., Engineering craniofacial scaffolds. Orthod Craniofac Res, 2005. 8(3): p. 162-73.

4. Sun W, D.A., Starly B, Nam J, Computer-Aided Tissue Engineering:Overview, Scope, and Challenges. Biotechnology and Applied Biochemistry, 2004. 39: p. 29-47.





Written by Matthew Wettergreen

March 23, 2008 at 8:00 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: