Next Article in Journal
Preparation and Performance of Silicone Rubber Composites Modified by Polyurethane
Next Article in Special Issue
PEDOT-Coated PLA Fibers Electrospun from Solutions Incorporating Fe(III)Tosylate in Different Solvents by Vapor-Phase Polymerization for Neural Regeneration
Previous Article in Journal
Biological Macromolecule Hydrogel Based on Recombinant Type I Collagen/Chitosan Scaffold to Accelerate Full-Thickness Healing of Skin Wounds
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bacterial Inhibition and Osteogenic Potentials of Sr/Zn Co-Doped Nano-Hydroxyapatite-PLGA Composite Scaffold for Bone Tissue Engineering Applications
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Virtual Design of 3D-Printed Bone Tissue Engineered Scaffold Shape Using Mechanobiological Modeling: Relationship of Scaffold Pore Architecture to Bone Tissue Formation

Polymers 2023, 15(19), 3918; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15193918
by Adel Alshammari 1,2,*, Fahad Alabdah 1,2, Weiguang Wang 1 and Glen Cooper 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Polymers 2023, 15(19), 3918; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15193918
Submission received: 16 August 2023 / Revised: 14 September 2023 / Accepted: 26 September 2023 / Published: 28 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Polymer Scaffold for Tissue Engineering Applications)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript reports on the investigation of the relationship between pore architecture and bone formation through the use of a model. It is a very interesting manuscript for a preliminary study in this area.

 The following have to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered.

 1. The authors found that irregular pore gradient are better than regular pore gradient architecture for bone formation. What is the difference in size between the regular and irregular pore architecture?

 2. Can the irregular gradient impact on the surface properties of the scaffolds and thus on bone cell growth? Can the authors discuss this parameter.in section 4.

 3. The results in Figure 7 have no statistical analysis.

 4. Can the authors explain the size of the pores chosen in the models? Did they use the size/area of bone cells to create the model?

How does the area of bone cells compare to the chosen area of the pores?

 5. Did the authors use only 1 in vivo study to validate their model? Did the model mimic the natural bone being treated in the in vivo experiment?

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please consider describing this model's limitations using a table or chart.

Justify how this model fits to mimic  native tissue  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all queries.

Back to TopTop