z-logo
Premium
Variation of cyclic strain parameters regulates development of elastic modulus in fibroblast/substrate constructs
Author(s) -
Joshi Sagar D.,
Webb Ken
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
journal of orthopaedic research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.041
H-Index - 155
eISSN - 1554-527X
pISSN - 0736-0266
DOI - 10.1002/jor.20626
Subject(s) - materials science , strain (injury) , elastic modulus , biomedical engineering , composite material , modulus , tissue engineering , engineering , anatomy , medicine
Dynamic mechanical culture systems are a widely studied approach for improving the functional mechanical properties of tissue engineering constructs intended for loading‐bearing orthopedic applications such as tendon/ligament reconstruction. The design of effective mechanical stimulation regimes requires a fundamental understanding of the effects of cyclic strain parameters on the resulting construct properties. Toward this end, these studies employed a modular cyclic strain bioreactor system and fibroblast‐seeded, porous polyurethane substrates to systematically investigate the effect of varying cyclic strain amplitude, rate, frequency, and daily cycle number on construct mechanical properties. Significant differences were observed in response to variation of all four loading parameters tested. In general, the highest values of elastic modulus within each experimental group were observed at low to intermediate values of the experimental variables tested, corresponding to the low to subphysiological range (2.5% strain amplitude, 25%/s strain rate, 0.1–0.5 Hz frequency, and 7,200–28,800 cycles/day). These studies demonstrate that fibroblasts are sensitive and responsive to multiple characteristics of their mechanical environment, and suggest that systematic optimization of dynamic culture conditions may be useful for the acceleration of construct maturation and mechanical function. © 2008 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 26:1105–1113, 2008

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here