↓ Skip to main content

The Use of Finite Element Analyses to Design and Fabricate Three-Dimensional Scaffolds for Skeletal Tissue Engineering

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Use of Finite Element Analyses to Design and Fabricate Three-Dimensional Scaffolds for Skeletal Tissue Engineering
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2017.00030
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wim. J. Hendrikson, Clemens. A. van Blitterswijk, Jeroen Rouwkema, Lorenzo Moroni

Abstract

Computational modeling has been increasingly applied to the field of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Where in early days computational models were used to better understand the biomechanical requirements of targeted tissues to be regenerated, recently, more and more models are formulated to combine such biomechanical requirements with cell fate predictions to aid in the design of functional three-dimensional scaffolds. In this review, we highlight how computational modeling has been used to understand the mechanisms behind tissue formation and can be used for more rational and biomimetic scaffold-based tissue regeneration strategies. With a particular focus on musculoskeletal tissues, we discuss recent models attempting to predict cell activity in relation to specific mechanical and physical stimuli that can be applied to them through porous three-dimensional scaffolds. In doing so, we review the most common scaffold fabrication methods, with a critical view on those technologies that offer better properties to be more easily combined with computational modeling. Finally, we discuss how modeling, and in particular finite element analysis, can be used to optimize the design of scaffolds for skeletal tissue regeneration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 20%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Researcher 9 8%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 24 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 51 45%
Materials Science 10 9%
Physics and Astronomy 4 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 30 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,892,691
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#2,917
of 6,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,040
of 313,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#15
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,687 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,744 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.