Search for: All records

Abstract Tissue mimicking materials are designed to represent real tissue in applications such as medical device testing and surgical training. Thanks to progress in 3D‐printing technology, tissue mimics can now be easily cast into arbitrary geometries and manufactured with adjustable material properties to mimic a wide variety of tissue types. However, it is unclear how well 3D‐printable mimics represent real tissues and their mechanics. The objective of this work is to fill this knowledge gap using the Stratasys Digital Anatomy 3D‐Printer as an example. To this end, we created mimics of biological tissues we previously tested in our laboratory: blood clots, myocardium, and tricuspid valve leaflets. We printed each tissue mimic to have the identical geometry to its biological counterpart and tested the samples using identical protocols. In our evaluation, we focused on the stiffness of the tissues and their fracture toughness in the case of blood clots. We found that the mechanical behavior of the tissue mimics often differed substantially from the biological tissues they aim to represent. Qualitatively, tissue mimics failed to replicate the traditional strain‐stiffening behavior of soft tissues. Quantitatively, tissue mimics were stiffer than their biological counterparts, especially at small strains, in some cases by orders of magnitude. In those materials in which we tested toughness, we found that tissue mimicking materials were also much tougher than their biological counterparts. Thus, our work highlights limitations of at least one 3D‐printing technology in its ability to mimic the mechanical properties of biological tissues. Therefore, care should be taken when using this technology, especially where tissue mimicking materials are expected to represent soft tissue properties quantitatively. Whether other technologies fare better remains to be seen. 

Constitutive models are important to biomechanics for two key reasons. First, constitutive modelling is an essential component of characterizing tissues’ mechanical properties for informing theoretical and computational models of biomechanical systems. Second, constitutive models can be used as a theoretical framework for extracting and comparing key quantities of interest from material characterization experiments. Over the past five decades, the Ogden model has emerged as a popular constitutive model in soft tissue biomechanics with relevance to both informing theoretical and computational models and to comparing material characterization experiments. The goal of this short review is threefold. First, we will discuss the broad relevance of the Ogden model to soft tissue biomechanics and the general characteristics of soft tissues that are suitable for approximating with the Ogden model. Second, we will highlight exemplary uses of the Ogden model in brain tissue, blood clot and other tissues. Finally, we offer a tutorial on fitting the one-term Ogden model to pure shear experimental data via both an analytical approximation of homogeneous deformation and a finite-element model of the tissue domain. Overall, we anticipate that this short review will serve as a practical introduction to the use of the Ogden model in biomechanics. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The Ogden model of rubber mechanics: Fifty years of impact on nonlinear elasticity’.