Benchtop validation study demonstrates automated, reproducible pore characterization in 3D-printed scaffolds, suggesting an accessible quality-control method for bone tissue engineering.
Craniofacial bone regeneration is a demanding application of tissue engineering (TE) in which scaffold architecture-pore size, shape and spatial distribution-is a determinant of regenerative success, so that reliable geometric quality control is a prerequisite for translation. Conventional assessment of printed scaffold geometry is largely manual, time-consuming and subject to operator variability. Here we present a low-cost, semi-automated imaging platform that combines custom 3D-printed hardware-a 12.3 MP Raspberry Pi High Quality Camera with a 6 mm CS-mount lens, an adjustable monopod and a ring illuminator-with a dedicated image-processing pipeline. The system acquires a single zenithal image of a scaffold and segments it to quantify the number, area, perimeter and compactness of the pores of the uppermost printed layer; it therefore characterises two-dimensional surface macrotopography and does not resolve internal three-dimensional architecture or pore interconnectivity. On a printed reference grid the platform was highly repeatable (coefficient of variation, CV = 1.33%) but systematically underestimated pore area by 11.6%, a reproducible bias that can be removed by calibration. On a 3D-printed PLA scaffold, repeated acquisitions agreed to within CV = 0.01-2.48% (N = 5), whereas manual measurement of the same specimen by three experienced operators gave an inter-user CV of 11.5-22.8% and an intra-user CV of 0-12.7%. Feasibility was further demonstrated on two silica-gelatin hybrid bioink scaffolds and on a silica-based scaffold with non-linear pore boundaries. The total hardware cost is approximately €170. By reducing user-dependent variability under the conditions tested, and at a cost accessible to standard laboratories, the platform provides a practical quality-control tool for scaffold fabrication, with potential application to craniofacial tissue engineering.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marimon et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: