Note on the use of different approaches to determine the pore sizes of tissue engineering scaffolds: what do we measure?
Note on the use of different approaches to determine the pore sizes of tissue engineering scaffolds: what do we measure?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12938-018-0543-z
复制
发表时间：
2018-08-17
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Foltán R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bartoš M;Suchý T;Foltán R
胶原基支架为骨缺损的治疗提供了一个很有前途的选择。这种支架的关键参数之一是孔隙率，包括孔径。然而，到目前为止，还没有找到关于孔大小评估方法的一致意见。由于不可能确定准确的孔径大小值，所以所应用的各种方法的比较是复杂的。因此，本研究重点比较了两种广泛使用的孔隙度表征方法--扫描电子显微镜(SEM)和微计算机断层扫描(Micro-CT)。采用冷冻干燥和胶原交联的方法制备了7种胶原基复合支架模型。在3D和2D上进行Micro-CT分析(孔径参数为：大径、平均厚度、最大内圆直径和面积等效圆直径)。然后，通过扫描电子显微镜照片的图像分析，对相同的样品进行了孔径分析。对结果进行统计学评价。对各种评估孔径大小的方法的比较是基于变异系数和对选定质量的半定量评估(例如，直接3D分析的可能性、整体样品分析、非破坏性)。孔大小值因所用参数的不同而显著不同。孔径的中位数从20到490微米不等。每个样品的扫描电子显微镜的值大约是Micro-CT 3D值的3倍。平均厚度是最有利的Micro-CT二维成像方法。变异系数表明，孔径参数之间(除大直径外)没有差异。半定量比较法给出的孔径参数由大到小依次为：(1)Micro-CT3D，(2)平均厚度和扫描电子显微镜，(3)最大内圆直径、长径和面积等效圆直径。结果表明，Micro-CT三维评估提供了最有利的整体评估方法。在时间效应方面，Micro-CT 2D分析(平均厚度)具有优势。扫描电子显微镜因其用途广泛、分辨率高而被认为是金标准。然而，支架材料中孔径分析的准确比较仍然是一个挑战。本文的在线版本(10.1186/s129380180543-z)包含向授权用户提供的补充材料。
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). 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). 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. 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. The online version of this article (10.1186/s12938-018-0543-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.6
作者：
Gregor A;Filová E;Novák M;Kronek J;Chlup H;Buzgo M;Blahnová V;Lukášová V;Bartoš M;Nečas A;Hošek J
通讯作者：
Hošek J
影响因子：
9.7
作者：
Gomez, S.;Vlad, M. D.;Fernandez, E.
通讯作者：
Fernandez, E.
影响因子：
9.7
作者：
Offeddu, G. S.;Ashworth, J. C.;Oyen, M. L.
通讯作者：
Oyen, M. L.
影响因子：
14
作者：
Kemppainen, Jessica M.;Hollister, Scott J.
通讯作者：
Hollister, Scott J.
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
Jirik, Miroslav;Bartos, Martin;Tonar, Zbynek
通讯作者：
Tonar, Zbynek