Search results for: Ozcan Yavas

Authors: Zeynep Busra Velioglu, Deniz Pulat, Beril Demirbakan, Burak Ozcan, Ece Bayrak, Cevat Erisken

Abstract:

Bone tissue has the ability to perform a wide array of functions including providing posture, load-bearing capacity, protection for the internal organs, initiating hematopoiesis, and maintaining the homeostasis of key electrolytes via calcium/phosphate ion storage. The most common cause for bone defects is extensive trauma and subsequent infection. Bone tissue has the self-healing capability without a scar tissue formation for the majority of the injuries. However, some may result with delayed union or fracture non-union. Such cases include reconstruction of large bone defects or cases of compromised regenerative process as a result of avascular necrosis and osteoporosis. Several surgical methods exist to treat bone defects, including Ilizarov method, Masquelete technique, growth factor stimulation, and bone replacement. Unfortunately, these are technically demanding and come with noteworthy disadvantages such as lengthy treatment duration, adverse effects on the patient’s psychology, repeated surgical procedures, and often long hospitalization times. These limitations associated with surgical techniques make bone substitutes an attractive alternative. Here, it was hypothesized that a 3D printed scaffold will mimic trabecular bone in terms of biomechanical properties and that such scaffolds will support cell attachment and survival. To test this hypothesis, this study aimed at fabricating poly(lactic acid), PLA, structures using 3D printing technology for trabecular bone defects, characterizing the scaffolds and comparing with bovine trabecular bone. Capacity of scaffolds on human bone marrow stem cell (hBMSC) attachment and survival was also evaluated. Cubes with a volume of 1 cm³ having pore sizes of 0.50, 1.00 and 1.25 mm were printed. The scaffolds/grafts were characterized in terms of porosity, contact angle, compressive mechanical properties as well cell response. Porosities of the 3D printed scaffolds were calculated based on apparent densities. For contact angles, 50 µl distilled water was dropped over the surface of scaffolds, and contact angles were measured using ‘Image J’ software. Mechanical characterization under compression was performed on scaffolds and native trabecular bone (bovine, 15 months) specimens using a universal testing machine at a rate of 0.5mm/min. hBMSCs were seeded onto the 3D printed scaffolds. After 3 days of incubation with fully supplemented Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium, the cells were fixed using 2% formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde mixture. The specimens were then imaged under scanning electron microscopy. Cell proliferation was determined by using EZQuant dsDNA Quantitation kit. Fluorescence was measured using microplate reader Spectramax M2 at the excitation and emission wavelengths of 485nm and 535nm, respectively. Findings suggested that porosity of scaffolds with pore dimensions of 0.5mm, 1.0mm and 1.25mm were not affected by pore size, while contact angle and compressive modulus decreased with increasing pore size. Biomechanical characterization of trabecular bone yielded higher modulus values as compared to scaffolds with all pore sizes studied. Cells attached and survived in all surfaces, demonstrating higher proliferation on scaffolds with 1.25mm pores as compared with those of 1mm. Collectively, given lower mechanical properties of scaffolds as compared to native bone, and biocompatibility of the scaffolds, the 3D printed PLA scaffolds of this study appear as candidate substitutes for bone repair and regeneration.

Keywords: 3D printing, biomechanics, bone repair, stem cell

Procedia PDF Downloads 174

Authors: Murat Arıbaş, Uğur Özcan

Abstract:

Due to the increasing number of universities and academics, the fund of the universities for research activities and grants/supports given by government institutions have increased number and quality of academic research projects. Although every academic research project has a specific purpose and importance, limited resources (money, time, manpower etc.) require choosing the best ones from all (Amiri, 2010). It is a pretty hard process to compare and determine which project is better such that the projects serve different purposes. In addition, the evaluation process has become complicated since there are more than one evaluator and multiple criteria for the evaluation (Dodangeh, Mojahed and Yusuff, 2009). Mehrez and Sinuany-Stern (1983) determined project selection problem as a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem. If a decision problem involves multiple criteria and objectives, it is called as a Multi Attribute Decision Making problem (Ömürbek & Kınay, 2013). There are many MCDM methods in the literature for the solution of such problems. These methods are AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), ANP (Analytic Network Process), TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation), UTADIS (Utilities Additives Discriminantes), ELECTRE (Elimination et Choix Traduisant la Realite), MAUT (Multiattribute Utility Theory), GRA (Grey Relational Analysis) etc. Teach method has some advantages compared with others (Ömürbek, Blacksmith & Akalın, 2013). Hence, to decide which MCDM method will be used for solution of the problem, factors like the nature of the problem, types of choices, measurement scales, type of uncertainty, dependency among the attributes, expectations of decision maker, and quantity and quality of the data should be considered (Tavana & Hatami-Marbini, 2011). By this study, it is aimed to develop a systematic decision process for the grant support applications that are expected to be evaluated according to their scientific adequacy by multiple evaluators under certain criteria. In this context, project evaluation process applied by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) the leading institutions in our country, was investigated. Firstly in the study, criteria that will be used on the project evaluation were decided. The main criteria were selected among TÜBİTAK evaluation criteria. These criteria were originality of project, methodology, project management/team and research opportunities and extensive impact of project. Moreover, for each main criteria, 2-4 sub criteria were defined, hence it was decided to evaluate projects over 13 sub-criterion in total. Due to superiority of determination criteria weights AHP method and provided opportunity ranking great number of alternatives TOPSIS method, they are used together. AHP method, developed by Saaty (1977), is based on selection by pairwise comparisons. Because of its simple structure and being easy to understand, AHP is the very popular method in the literature for determining criteria weights in MCDM problems. Besides, the TOPSIS method developed by Hwang and Yoon (1981) as a MCDM technique is an alternative to ELECTRE method and it is used in many areas. In the method, distance from each decision point to ideal and to negative ideal solution point was calculated by using Euclidian Distance Approach. In the study, main criteria and sub-criteria were compared on their own merits by using questionnaires that were developed based on an importance scale by four relative groups of people (i.e. TUBITAK specialists, TUBITAK managers, academics and individuals from business world ) After these pairwise comparisons, weight of the each main criteria and sub-criteria were calculated by using AHP method. Then these calculated criteria’ weights used as an input in TOPSİS method, a sample consisting 200 projects were ranked on their own merits. This new system supported to opportunity to get views of the people that take part of project process including preparation, evaluation and implementation on the evaluation of academic research projects. Moreover, instead of using four main criteria in equal weight to evaluate projects, by using weighted 13 sub-criteria and decision point’s distance from the ideal solution, systematic decision making process was developed. By this evaluation process, new approach was created to determine importance of academic research projects.

Keywords: Academic projects, Ahp method, Research projects evaluation, Topsis method.

Procedia PDF Downloads 591