Jaber, MahdiMahdiJaberPoh, Patrina Su PingPatrina Su PingPohDuda, GeorgGeorgDudaCheca Esteban, SaraSaraCheca Esteban2024-06-282024-06-282022-09-23Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 10: 995266 (2022)https://hdl.handle.net/11420/48127The treatment of large bone defects represents a major clinical challenge. 3D printed scaffolds appear as a promising strategy to support bone defect regeneration. The 3D design of such scaffolds impacts the healing path and thus defect regeneration potential. Among others, scaffold architecture has been shown to influence the healing outcome. Gyroid architecture, characterized by a zero mean surface curvature, has been discussed as a promising scaffold design for bone regeneration. However, whether gyroid scaffolds are favourable for bone regeneration in large bone defects over traditional strut-like architecture scaffolds remains unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether gyroid scaffolds present advantages over more traditional strut-like scaffolds in terms of their bone regeneration potential. Validated bone defect regeneration principles were applied in an in silico modeling approach that allows to predict bone formation in defect regeneration. Towards this aim, the mechano-biological bone regeneration principles were adapted to allow simulating bone regeneration within both gyroid and strut-like scaffolds. We found that the large surface curvatures of the gyroid scaffold led to a slower tissue formation dynamic and conclusively reduced bone regeneration. The initial claim, that an overall reduced zero mean surface curvature would enhance bone formation, could not be confirmed. The here presented approach illustrates the potential of in silico tools to evaluate in pre-clinical studies scaffold designs and eventually lead to optimized architectures of 3D printed implants for bone regeneration.en2296-41852022Frontiers Media SA3D-printed scaffold designbone defect healingbone tissue engineeringgyroidmechano-biologyTPMSTechnology::610: Medicine, HealthJournal Article10.3389/fbioe.2022.995266Journal Article