Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Homogenous scaffold-based cranial/skull implant modelling and structural analysis—unit cell algorithm-meshless approach

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This computational study explores a unique modelling approach of the cranial implant, homogenous scaffold algorithm and meshless method, respectively. This meshless method is employed to review the implant underneath intracranial pressure (ICP) conditions with a standard ICP range of 7 mm of Hg to 15 mm of Hg. The algorithm is used to introduce uniform porosity within the implant enabling the implant behaviour with respect to ICP conditions. However, increase in the porosity leads to variation in deformation and equivalent stress, respectively. The meshless approach provides a valuable insight in order to know the effect of total deformation and equivalent stress (von Mises stress) and replaces the standard meshing strategies. The patient CT data (computed tomography) is processed in MIMICS software to get the mesh model. An entirely unique modelling approach is developed to model the cranial implant with the assistance of the Rhinoceros software. This modelling methodology is the easiest one and addressing both the symmetrical and asymmetrical defects. The implant is embedded in a unit cell-based porous structure with the help of an algorithm, and this algorithm is simple to manage the consistency in porosity and pore size of the scaffold. Totally six types of implants are modelled with variation in porosity and replicate the original cranial bone. Among six implants, Type 2 (porosity 82.62%) and Type 5 (porosity 45.73%) implants are analysed with the meshless approach under ICP. The total deformation and equivalent stress (von Mises stress) of porous implants are compared with the solid implant under same ICP conditions. Consequently, distinctive materials are used for structural analysis such as titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) and polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK), respectively. The deformation and equivalent stress (von Mises stress) results are obtained through the structural analysis. It was observed from the results that the titanium-based solid implant is the best implant in all aspects, while considering weight and osseointegration PEEK-based Type 5 implant is the best one. A novel free-form closed curve network (FCN) technique is successfully developed to model a cranial implant for symmetrical and asymmetrical defects. The porous implant is adequately modelled through the unit cell algorithm and analysed through meshless approach. The implementation of 3D printed component will allow physicians to gain knowledge and successfully plan the preoperative surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hieu LC, Bohez E, Vander Sloten J, Phien HN, Vatcharaporn E, Binsh PH, An PV, Oris P (2003) Design for medical rapid prototyping of cranioplasty implants. Rapid Prototyp J 9(3):175–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. O’Reilly EB, Barnett S, Madden C, Welch B, Mickey B, Rozen S (2015) Computed-tomography modeled polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) implants in revision cranioplasty. J Plast Recon Str Aesthet Surg 68(3):329–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ridwan-Pramana A, Marcián P, Borák L, Narra N, Forouzanfar T, Wolff J (2016) Structural and mechanical implications of PMMA implant shape and interface geometry in cranioplasty a finite element study. J Cranio Maxilla Fac Surg 44(1):34–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chacón-Moya E, Gallegos-Hernández JF, Piña-Cabrales S, Cohn-Zurita F, Goné-Fernández A (2009) Cranial vault reconstruction using computer-designed polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implant: case report. Cir Cir 77(6):437–440

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen JJ, Liu W, Li MZ, Wang CT (2006) Digital manufacture of titanium prosthesis for cranioplasty. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 27(11):1148–1152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. El Halabi F, Rodriguez JF, Rebolledo L, Hurtos E, Doblare M (2011) Mechanical characterization and numerical simulation of polyether–ether–ketone (PEEK) cranial implants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 4(8):1819–1832

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jardini AL, Larosa MA, Maciel Filho R, Zavaglia CA, Bernardes LF, Lambert CS, Calderoni DR, Kharmandayan P (2014) Cranial reconstruction: 3D biomodel and custom-built implant created using additive manufacturing. J. Cranio. Maxilla. Fac. Surg. 42(8):1877–1884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Phanindra Bogu V, Ravi Kumar Y, Asit Kumar K (2016) Modelling and structural analysis of skull/cranial implant: beyond mid-line deformities. ABB 19(1):125–131

  9. Poukens J, Laeven P, Beerens M, Nijenhuis G, Sloten JV, Stoelinga P, Kessler P (2008) A classification of cranial implants based on the degree of difficulty in computer design and manufacture. Int J Med Robot 4(1):46–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Marieb RN, Wilhelm PB, Mallatt J (2012) Human anatomy, sixth edn. Pearson, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  11. Martin FH, Timmons MJ, Tallitsch RB (2012) Human anatomy, second edn. Pearson, USA

    Google Scholar 

  12. Boruah S, Paskoff GR, Shender BS, Subit DL, Salzar RS, Crandall JR (2015) Variation of bone layer thicknesses and trabecular volume fraction in the adult male human calvarium. Bone 77:120–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lillie EM, Urban JE, Weaver AA, Powers AK, Stitzel JD (2014) Estimation of the skull table thickness with clinical CT and validation with micro CT. J Anat 226(1):73–80

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Lynnerup N, Astrup JG, Sejrsen B (2005) Thickness of the human cranial diploe in relation to age, sex and general body build. Head Face Med 1:13

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Loh QL, Choong C (2013) Three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: role of porosity and pore size. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 19(6):485–502

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tim VC, Jan S, Hans VO, Jos VS (2006) Micro-CT-based screening of biomechanical and structural properties of bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Med Bio Eng Comput 44:517–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kwon DY, Kwon JS, Park SH, Park JH, Jang SH, Yin XY, Yun JH, Kim JH, Min BH, Lee JH, Kim WD, Kim MS (2015) A computer designed scaffold for bone regeneration with cranial defect using human dental pulp stem cells. Sci Rep 5:12721

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Petrie Aronin CE, Sadik KW, Lay AL, Rion DB, Tholpady SS, Ogle RC, Botchwey EA (2009) Comparative effects of scaffold pore size, pore volume, and total void volume on cranial bone healing patterns using microsphere-based scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A 89(3):632–641

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Simske SJ, Sachdeva R (1995) Cranial bone apposition and ingrowth in a porous nickel-titanium implant. J Biomed Mater Res 29(4):527–533

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brimioulle S, Moraine JJ, Norrenberg D, Kahn RJ (1997) Effects of positioning and exercise on intracranial pressure in a neurosurgical intensive care unit. Phys Ther 77(12):1682–1689

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Steiner LA, Andrews PJD (2006) Monitoring the injured brain: ICP and CBF. Br J Anaesth 97(1):26–38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Freytag M, Shapiro V, Tsukanov I (2001) Finite element analysis in situ. Finite Elem Anal Des 47(9):957–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kosta T, Tsukanov I (2014) Three-dimensional natural vibration analysis with meshfree solution structure method. ASME Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 136:51007–51001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gasparini R, Kosta T, Tsukanov I (2013) Engineering analysis in imprecise geometric models. Finite Elem Anal Des 66:96–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nelaturi S, Shapiro V (2015) Representation and analysis of additively manufactured parts. Comput Aided Des 67-68:13–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Van Bael S, Chai YC, Truscello S, Moesen M, Kerckhofs G, Van Oosterwyck H, Kurth JP, Schrooten J (2012) The effect of pore geometry on the in vitro biological behavior of human periosteum-derived seeded on selective laser-method Ti6Al4V bone scaffolds. Acta Biomater 8(7):2824–2834

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chantarapanich N, Puttawibull P, Sucharitpwatskul S, Jeamwatthanachai P, Inglam S, Sitthiseripratip K (2012) Scaffold library for tissue engineering: a geometric evaluation. Comput Math Methods Med. doi:10.1155/2012/407805

  28. Wang X, Xu S, Zhou S, Xu W, Leary M, Choong P, Qian M, Brandt M, Xie YM (2012) Topological design and additive manufacturing of porous metals for bone scaffolds and orthopedic implants. A review Biomaterials 83:127–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Griffin MJ (2001) The validation of biodynamic models. Clin. Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 16(1):S81–S92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Viceconti M, Olsen S, Nolte LP, Burton K (2005) Extracting clinically relevant data from finite element simulations. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 20(5):451–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Mr. B. Mohan Raj, Scientist in Biotechnology, India, and Dr. Gireesh Bogu, Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Barcelona, regarding human anatomy- and tissue engineering-related discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Warangal, Warangal, Telangana, 506004, India

    V Phanindra Bogu & Y Ravi Kumar

  2. Department of Metallurgical & Material Engineering, National Institute of Technology Warangal, Warangal, Telangana, 506004, India

    Asit Kumar Khanra

Authors
  1. V Phanindra Bogu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Y Ravi Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Asit Kumar Khanra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V Phanindra Bogu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Phanindra Bogu, V., Ravi Kumar, Y. & Kumar Khanra, A. Homogenous scaffold-based cranial/skull implant modelling and structural analysis—unit cell algorithm-meshless approach. Med Biol Eng Comput 55, 2053–2065 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-017-1649-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-017-1649-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation