Application of mechanoregulatory models to simulate peri-implant tissue formation in an in vivo bone chamber

Tissue differentiation in an in vivo bioreactor: in silico investigations of scaffold stiffness

“…Simulations of tissue differentiation inside a mechanically loaded in vivo bone chamber have achieved qualitative corroboration in previous studies [10,11] and shown that the well defined and mechanically controlled environment make bone chambers very suitable for tissue differentiation experiments and simulations. In this study, a bone chamber developed by Tägil and Aspenberg [15] was used (Fig.…”

“…By characterising the skeletal tissues as biphasic materials, Prendergast et al [7] proposed that a biophysical stimulus (a combination of fluid flow and shear strain) regulated tissue formation. Although the mechanoregulation theories of Carter et al [5], Claes and Heigele [6], and Prendergast et al [7] have been able to capture the main aspects of tissue differentiation, the predictions by the theory of Prendergast et al [7] have been most successfully correlated with experimental results [8][9][10][11]. Another key factor that regulates tissue differentiation is the formation of blood vessels.…”

In silicobiology of bone modelling and remodelling: regeneration

“…Another application of the mechanobioregulatory model (Geris et al 2008b) is shown in figure 7 for fracture healing. The absence of bone formation was predicted under severe overloading conditions (figure 7b; overload equal to five times physiological load), mainly due to the adverse effect of high loads on the angiogenic process, as specified in the model (figure 5; excessive fluid flow reduces endothelial cell proliferation).…”

Corroboration of mechanobiological simulations of tissue differentiation in an in vivo bone chamber using a lattice‐modeling approach

“…5 All models predicted the process of fracture healing; however, when applying torsional loading, only the biophysical stimulus proposed by Prendergast et al 4 was able to simulate the failure of healing patterns closest to that observed in the animal experiments. Geris et al 6 applied two of the models 3,4 to simulate an in vivo bone chamber experiment. Both models described tissue regeneration in the chamber qualitatively, but more qualitative and quantitative experimental results are necessary to corroborate the predictive capacities of the models.…”

“…Both models described tissue regeneration in the chamber qualitatively, but more qualitative and quantitative experimental results are necessary to corroborate the predictive capacities of the models. Although these theories predicted some of the main aspects of tissue regeneration in fracture healing, 5,7-9 tissue engineering, 10,11 bone/implant interfaces, 6,12,13 or distraction osteogenesis, [14][15][16][17] they may be criticized for this lack of corroboration.…”