Combining Fluid Dynamics and Biological Experiments to Explore the More Suitable Porosity for Bone Inducing Porous Tantalum Scaffolds

Abstract

Objective: Repair of large bone defects remains a clinical challenge in orthopedics. Optimal porosity is pivotal for the osteogenic induction of porous tantalum scaffolds. This study aimed to investigate the appropriate porosity of porous tantalum scaffolds for osteogenic induction.

Methods: Porous tantalum scaffolds with approximately 45%, 55%, and 65% porosity were fabricated via parametric engineering and laser powder bed fusion 3D printing. Computational fluid dynamics simulations were used to analyze their hydrodynamic characteristics, and in vitro experiments were performed to evaluate their biocompatibility and osteogenic differentiation capacity.

Results: The porosity of scaffolds can influence the internal fluid microenvironment and further regulate the behavior of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Compared to scaffolds with porosities of 45% and 65%, those with a porosity of approximately 55% exhibited optimal hydrodynamic properties, superior cellular compatibility, and outstanding osteogenic differentiation capacity, along with the highest mineralized nodule density and significantly elevated expression levels of osteogenesis-related genes (p < 0.001) and proteins (p < 0.01).

Conclusion: This study confirms that approximately 55% porosity is more suitable for osteogenic induction in porous tantalum scaffolds. These findings provide theoretical and experimental evidence for subsequent in vivo studies and clinical translation of porous tantalum scaffolds.

Keywords

3D printing / different porosity / fluid dynamics / osteogenesis / tantalum scaffolds

References

[1] G. Fernandez De Grado, L. Keller, Y. Idoux-Gillet, et al., “Bone Substitutes: A Review of Their Characteristics, Clinical Use, and Perspectives for Large Bone Defects Management,” Journal of Tissue Engineering 9 (2018): 2041731418776819, https://doi.org/10.1177/2041731418776819.

[2] D. Zhao, F. Witte, F. Lu, J. Wang, J. Li, and L. Qin, “Current Status on Clinical Applications of Magnesium-Based Orthopaedic Implants: A Review From Clinical Translational Perspective,” Biomaterials 112 (2017): 287–302, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.10.017.

[3] C. L. Ekegren, E. R. Edwards, R. De Steiger, and B. J. Gabbe, “Incidence, Costs and Predictors of Non-Union, Delayed Union and Mal-Union Following Long Bone Fracture,” IJERPH 15, no. 12 (2018): 2845, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122845.

[4] R. D. Madison and P. J. Nowotarski, “The Reamer-Irrigator-Aspirator in Nonunion Surgery,” Orthopedic Clinics of North America 50, no. 3 (2019): 297–304, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2019.03.001.

[5] M. Chatelet, F. Afota, and C. Savoldelli, “Review of Bone Graft and Implant Survival Rate : A Comparison Between Autogenous Bone Block Versus Guided Bone Regeneration,” Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 123, no. 2 (2022): 222–227, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2021.04.009.

[6] P. Baldwin, D. J. Li, D. A. Auston, H. S. Mir, R. S. Yoon, and K. J. Koval, “Autograft, Allograft, and Bone Graft Substitutes: Clinical Evidence and Indications for Use in the Setting of Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery,” Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 33, no. 4 (2019): 203–213, https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001420.

[7] H.-S. Sohn and J.-K. Oh, “Review of Bone Graft and Bone Substitutes With an Emphasis on Fracture Surgeries,” Biomaterials Research 23, no. 1 (2019): 9, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-019-0157-y.

[8] G. Zimmermann and A. Moghaddam, “Allograft Bone Matrix Versus Synthetic Bone Graft Substitutes,” Injury 42 (2011): S16–S21, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.06.199.

[9] T. F. Raven, A. Moghaddam, C. Ermisch, et al., “Use of Masquelet Technique in Treatment of Septic and Atrophic Fracture Nonunion,” Injury 50 (2019): 40–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2019.06.018.

[10] Z. Fu, J. Cui, B. Zhao, S. G. Shen, and K. Lin, “An Overview of Polyester/Hydroxyapatite Composites for Bone Tissue Repairing,” Journal of Orthopaedic Translation 28 (2021): 118–130, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2021.02.005.

[11] J. J. Li, A. Akey, C. R. Dunstan, et al., “Effects of Material–Tissue Interactions on Bone Regeneration Outcomes Using Baghdadite Implants in a Large Animal Model,” Advanced Healthcare Materials 7, no. 15 (2018): 1800218, https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201800218.

[12] J. Qi, T. Yu, B. Hu, H. Wu, and H. Ouyang, “Current Biomaterial-Based Bone Tissue Engineering and Translational Medicine,” IJMS 22, no. 19 (2021): 10233, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms221910233.

[13] J. J. Li, D. L. Kaplan, and H. Zreiqat, “Scaffold-Based Regeneration of Skeletal Tissues to Meet Clinical Challenges,” Journal of Materials Chemistry B 2, no. 42 (2014): 7272–7306, https://doi.org/10.1039/C4TB01073F.

[14] H. S. Gill, G. Grammatopoulos, S. Adshead, E. Tsialogiannis, and E. Tsiridis, “Molecular and Immune Toxicity of CoCr Nanoparticles in MoM Hip Arthroplasty,” Trends in Molecular Medicine 18, no. 3 (2012): 145–155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2011.12.002.

[15] J. Zhou, E. Georgas, Y. Su, et al., “Evolution From Bioinert to Bioresorbable: In Vivo Comparative Study of Additively Manufactured Metal Bone Scaffolds,” Advanced Science 10, no. 26 (2023): 2302702, https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202302702.

[16] F. Carraro and A. Bagno, “Tantalum as Trabecular Metal for Endosseous Implantable Applications,” Biomimetics 8, no. 1 (2023): 49, https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8010049.

[17] H. Gao, J. Yang, X. Jin, et al., “Porous Tantalum Scaffolds: Fabrication, Structure, Properties, and Orthopedic Applications,” Materials & Design 210 (2021): 110095, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.110095.

[18] Z. Zhou and D. Liu, “Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Seeded Porous Tantalum-Based Biomaterial: A Promising Choice for Promoting Bone Regeneration,” Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 215 (2022): 112491, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2022.112491.

[19] X. Wang, B. Ning, and X. Pei, “Tantalum and Its Derivatives in Orthopedic and Dental Implants: Osteogenesis and Antibacterial Properties,” Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 208 (2021): 112055, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2021.112055.

[20] G. Bouet, D. Marchat, M. Cruel, L. Malaval, and L. Vico, “In Vitro Three-Dimensional Bone Tissue Models: From Cells to Controlled and Dynamic Environment,” Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews 21, no. 1 (2015): 133–156, https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.teb.2013.0682.

[21] H. Wang, K. Su, L. Su, P. Liang, P. Ji, and C. Wang, “Comparison of 3D-Printed Porous Tantalum and Titanium Scaffolds on Osteointegration and Osteogenesis,” Materials Science and Engineering: C 104 (2019): 109908, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2019.109908.

[22] X. Dou, X. Wei, G. Liu, et al., “Effect of Porous Tantalum on Promoting the Osteogenic Differentiation of Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells In Vitro Through the MAPK/ERK Signal Pathway,” Journal of Orthopaedic Translation 19 (2019): 81–93, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2019.03.006.

[23] E. Volkmer, I. Drosse, S. Otto, et al., “Hypoxia in Static and Dynamic 3D Culture Systems for Tissue Engineering of Bone,” Tissue Engineering Part A 14, no. 8 (2008): 1331–1340, https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2007.0231.

[24] A. B. Yeatts and J. P. Fisher, “Bone Tissue Engineering Bioreactors: Dynamic Culture and the Influence of Shear Stress,” Bone 48, no. 2 (2011): 171–181, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2010.09.138.

[25] K. Bilodeau and D. Mantovani, “Bioreactors for Tissue Engineering: Focus on Mechanical Constraints. A Comparative Review,” Tissue Engineering 12, no. 8 (2006): 2367–2383, https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.2006.12.2367.

[26] S. Wang, Z. Shi, L. Liu, et al., “Honeycomb Structure Is Promising for the Repair of Human Bone Defects,” Materials & Design 207 (2021): 109832, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109832.

[27] W. Xu, A. Yu, Y. Jiang, et al., “Gyroid-Based Functionally Graded Porous Titanium Scaffolds for Dental Application: Design, Simulation and Characterizations,” Materials & Design 224 (2022): 111300, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.111300.

[28] D. Ali and S. Sen, “Permeability and Fluid Flow-Induced Wall Shear Stress of Bone Tissue Scaffolds: Computational Fluid Dynamic Analysis Using Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Blood Flow Models,” Computers in Biology and Medicine 99 (2018): 201–208, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.06.017.

[29] Q. Wang, H. Zhang, Q. Li, et al., “Biocompatibility and Osteogenic Properties of Porous Tantalum,” Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 9, no. 3 (2015): 780–786, https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2015.2208.

[30] D. Yang, J. Xiao, B. Wang, L. Li, X. Kong, and J. Liao, “The Immune Reaction and Degradation Fate of Scaffold in Cartilage/Bone Tissue Engineering,” Materials Science and Engineering: C 104 (2019): 109927, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2019.109927.

[31] S. Bencharit, W. C. Byrd, S. Altarawneh, et al., “Development and Applications of Porous Tantalum Trabecular Metal-Enhanced Titanium Dental Implants,” Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 16, no. 6 (2014): 817–826, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12059.

[32] Q. Han, C. Wang, H. Chen, X. Zhao, and J. Wang, “Porous Tantalum and Titanium in Orthopedics: A Review,” ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering 5, no. 11 (2019): 5798–5824, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.9b00493.

[33] Q. Duan, H. Shao, N. Luo, et al., “3D-Printed Artificial Bone Scaffolds: The Design of Materials, the Incorporation of Bioactive Substances, and the Integration of Vascularized Tissue Flaps,” Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 13 (2025): 1614727, https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1614727.

[34] W. Sun, S. Chi, Y. Li, et al., “The Mechanosensitive Piezo1 Channel Is Required for Bone Formation,” eLife 8 (2019): e47454, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47454.

[35] J. Song, L. Liu, L. Lv, et al., “Fluid Shear Stress Induces Runx-2 Expression via Upregulation of PIEZO1 in MC3T3-E1 Cells,” Cell Biology International 44, no. 7 (2020): 1491–1502, https://doi.org/10.1002/cbin.11344.

[36] M. Jiang, Q. Shen, Y. Zhou, et al., “Fluid Shear Stress and Endothelial Cells Synergistically Promote Osteogenesis of Mesenchymal Stem Cells via Integrin Β1-FAK-ERK1/2 Pathway,” Turkish Journal of Biology 45, no. 6 (2021): 683–694, https://doi.org/10.3906/biy-2104-20.

[37] A. Haleem, M. Javaid, R. H. Khan, and R. Suman, “3D Printing Applications in Bone Tissue Engineering,” Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma 11 (2020): S118–S124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2019.12.002.

[38] A. Aarvold, J. O. Smith, E. R. Tayton, et al., “The Effect of Porosity of a Biphasic Ceramic Scaffold on Human Skeletal Stem Cell Growth and Differentiation In Vivo,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 101, no. 12 (2013): 3431–3437, https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34646.

[39] M. Khajehmohammadi, R. Azizi Tafti, and H. Nikukar, “Effect of Porosity on Mechanical and Biological Properties of Bioprinted Scaffolds,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 111, no. 2 (2023): 245–260, https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.37455.

[40] Y. Yao, Y. Yang, Q. Ye, et al., “Effects of Pore Size and Porosity on Cytocompatibility and Osteogenic Differentiation of Porous Titanium,” Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine 32, no. 6 (2021): 72, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-021-06548-0.

[41] O. Chaudhuri, J. Cooper-White, P. A. Janmey, D. J. Mooney, and V. B. Shenoy, “Effects of Extracellular Matrix Viscoelasticity on Cellular Behaviour,” Nature 584, no. 7822 (2020): 535–546, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2612-2.

[42] G. Kumar, C. K. Tison, K. Chatterjee, et al., “The Determination of Stem Cell Fate by 3D Scaffold Structures Through the Control of Cell Shape,” Biomaterials 32, no. 35 (2011): 9188–9196, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.08.054.

[43] A. Ardeshirylajimi, M. Delgoshaie, S. Mirzaei, and A. Khojasteh, “Different Porosities of Chitosan Can Influence the Osteogenic Differentiation Potential of Stem Cells,” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 119, no. 1 (2018): 625–633, https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.26223.

[44] B. T. Smith, S. M. Bittner, E. Watson, et al., “Multimaterial Dual Gradient Three-Dimensional Printing for Osteogenic Differentiation and Spatial Segregation,” Tissue Engineering Part A 26, no. 5–6 (2020): 239–252, https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2019.0204.

[45] A. Di Luca, B. Ostrowska, I. Lorenzo-Moldero, et al., “Gradients in Pore Size Enhance the Osteogenic Differentiation of Human Mesenchymal Stromal Cells in Three-Dimensional Scaffolds,” Scientific Reports 6, no. 1 (2016): 22898, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep22898.

[46] D. Ali, M. Ozalp, S. B. G. Blanquer, and S. Onel, “Permeability and Fluid Flow-Induced Wall Shear Stress in Bone Scaffolds With TPMS and Lattice Architectures: A CFD Analysis,” European Journal of Mechanics - B/Fluids 79 (2020): 376–385, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechflu.2019.09.015.

[47] F. P. W. Melchels, B. Tonnarelli, A. L. Olivares, et al., “The Influence of the Scaffold Design on the Distribution of Adhering Cells After Perfusion Cell Seeding,” Biomaterials 32, no. 11 (2011): 2878–2884, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.01.023.

[48] A.-M. Pobloth, S. Checa, H. Razi, et al., “Mechanobiologically Optimized 3D Titanium-Mesh Scaffolds Enhance Bone Regeneration in Critical Segmental Defects in Sheep,” Science Translational Medicine 10, no. 423 (2018): eaam8828, https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aam8828.

[49] J. J. Li, C. R. Dunstan, A. Entezari, et al., “A Novel Bone Substitute With High Bioactivity, Strength, and Porosity for Repairing Large and Load-Bearing Bone Defects,” Advanced Healthcare Materials 8, no. 8 (2019): 1801298, https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201801298.

[50] L. Zhang, B. Wang, B. Song, et al., “3D Printed Biomimetic Metamaterials With Graded Porosity and Tapering Topology for Improved Cell Seeding and Bone Regeneration,” Bioactive Materials 25 (2023): 677–688, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.07.009.

[51] J. Liu, B. Liu, S. Min, et al., “Biodegradable Magnesium Alloy WE43 Porous Scaffolds Fabricated by Laser Powder Bed Fusion for Orthopedic Applications: Process Optimization, In Vitro and In Vivo Investigation,” Bioactive Materials 16 (2022): 301–319, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.02.020.

[52] X. Wang, A. Liu, Z. Zhang, et al., “Additively Manufactured Zn-2Mg Alloy Porous Scaffolds With Customizable Biodegradable Performance and Enhanced Osteogenic Ability,” Advanced Science 11, no. 5 (2024): 2307329, https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202307329.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2026 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.