Opinion Article,  J Regen Med Vol: 12 Issue: 2

Clinical Significance of Image Analysis of Biomaterial-Tissue Interactions

Isaac Forbes^*

Department of Cardiology, Restorative Sciences, and Endodontics, University of Michigan, Michigan, United States

*Corresponding Author: Isaac Forbes
Department of Cardiology, Restorative Sciences, and Endodontics, University of Michigan, Michigan, United States
E-mail: forbesi@umich.edu

Received: 05-March-2023, Manuscript No. JRGM-23-87533;
Editor assigned: 07-March-2023, PreQC No. JRGM-23-87533 (PQ);
Reviewed: 21-March-2023, QC No. JRGM-23-87533;
Revised: 24-March-2023, Manuscript No. JRGM-23-87533 (R);
Published: 31-March-2023, DOI:10.4172/2325-9620.1000244

Citation: Forbes I (2023) Clinical Significance of Image Analysis of Biomaterial-Tissue Interactions. J Regen Med 12:2.

Abstract

Keywords: Biomedical imaging; Life science; Designing material; Biological tissues.

Introduction

By functioning as carriers to transport bioactive chemicals and/ or therapeutic molecules in precision medicine, as well as scaffolds to assist the fabrication of functional tissues in regenerative medicine, biomaterials have been playing increasingly important roles in biomedicine. It is ideal to visualise biomaterials-tissue interactions with low invasiveness and high fidelity in order to maximise the performance of biomaterials. Imaging biomaterial-tissue interactions has historically been difficult since it typically calls for the biomaterials or cells to be designed with the appropriate imaging contrast [1]. Due to the increased imaging depth, complex tissue environment, and interference from the working biological system, it becomes much more difficult in in vivo situations.

The interactions between the applied probing energy format (such as light, sound, magnetic field, or x-ray photon) and the biomaterials/ tissues are the foundation of all biomedical imaging modalities. These interactions often include the objects’ absorbing, dispersing, and polarising the probing energy [2]. Imaging technologies may be categorised using a wide range of characteristics, including resolution, imaging depth, and contrast techniques. Specifically choosen the contrast mechanism because it best describes the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of a particular material or tissue type, and because it can serve as the most useful manual for choosing the technologies that are most appropriately suited for probing biomaterials and living things.Thus, based on their contrast processes, the common biomedical imaging modalities may be divided into acoustic imaging, magnetic imaging, optical imaging, electron imaging, x-ray imaging, and nuclear imaging.

Tissue engineering properties to enhance visual characterization

Though the various imaging modalities can all directly see certain characteristics of the specimens of interest, the sensitivity attained might not be sufficient to define the intended biomaterial-tissue interactions. As a result, in order to make biological entities and non-biological materials clearly apparent using the chosen imaging modalities, exogenous contrast mechanisms must frequently be included.Since they are significantly more compatible with improvements in optical qualities, the bulk of these synthetic biological contrast mechanisms have been restricted to application in optical imaging [3].

For various optical imaging modalities, there are several contrast mechanisms available. OCT imaging is made possible by optical scattering, which is made possible by polymeric biomaterials and the cell membrane, both in vitro and in vivo. Labels with higher refractive indexes, such magnetic beads and gold nanocages, may help to highlight the differences between the cells and the scaffolds [4]. In addition to scattering contrasts, optical imaging has found widespread uses for absorption and fluorescence, which often need for the addition of additional contrast mechanisms.

While many fluorescent molecules have been created and improved to enable confocal and multi-photon microscopy, or whole-body luminescence imaging, including its use for scaffold degradation, PAT is a more recent imaging modality based on absorption contrast that is gaining interest in studying cell-scaffold interactions. Contrasts, which can be based on chemical substances like chromogenic dyes, formazans that are digested by live cells or doped in scaffolds, gold nanoparticles, and carbon nanomaterials, are among the frequently used methods to enhance the signals of biomaterials and/or cells.

However, additional opportunities for other imaging modalities, such as US, OCT, MRI, and EM, may be provided by other potential means of generating contrasts, such as in situ synthesis of nanomaterials directly within biological cells using green chemistry, similar to cellular metabolism of tetrazolium salts to formazan crystals in the case of PAT imaging [5].

Conclusion

Improvements in the contrast mechanisms that allow for better visibility by these various imaging modalities as well as advances in imaging techniques that allow for a better understanding of the interactions between biomaterials and tissues. Additionally, several design concepts for enhancing these capabilities were put out. These design principles are crucial for domains like cancer theranostics, tissue engineering, and regenerative medicine.It is likely that multiscale characterization of biomaterial-tissue interactions will eventually be made possible in a high capacity thanks to the development of specialised multi-modality imaging systems and multiplexed contrast mechanisms, possibly in combination with new toolkits beyond these two conventional considerations.

References

1. Kang KT, Allen P, Bischoff J (2011) Bioengineered Human Vascular Networks Transplanted into Secondary Mice Reconnect with the Host Vasculature and Re-establish Perfusion. Blood, 118(25):6718-6721.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

2. Xu HH, Othman SF, Magin RL (2008) Monitoring Tissue Engineering using Magnetic Resonance İmaging. J Biosci Bioeng, 106(6):515-527.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

3. Kim K, Jeong CJ, Hollister SJ (2008) Non-invasive Monitoring of Tissue Scaffold Degradation using Ultrasound Elasticity İmaging. Acta Biomater, 4:783-790.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

4. Ying Y, Dubois A, Qin X, Li J, Haj A, et al. (2006) Investigation of Optical Coherence Tomography as an İmaging Modality in Tissue Engineering. Phys Med Biol, 2006;51(7):1649.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

5. Hainfeld JF, Slatkin DN, Focella TM, Smilowitz HM (2006) Gold Nanoparticles: A New X-ray Contrast Agent. Br J Radiol, 79(939):248-253.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref