3D printing tissue-mimicking materials for realistic transseptal puncture models

Bezek, Lindsey B.; Cauchi, Matthew; Vita, R. De; Foerst, Jason; Williams, Christopher B.

doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103971

Cited by 29 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to design 3D scaffolds for customization, the shape of the 3D scaffold can be established by the unique properties of smart material and 3D printing technologies. The customized shapes of 3D scaffolds provide a suitable environment for mimicking tissue [44].…”

Section: Tissue Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Strategies in Assessment of Nanotoxicity: Alternatives to In Vivo Animal Testing

Huang

Lee

Hsu

et al. 2021

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Millions of experimental animals are widely used in the assessment of toxicological or biological effects of manufactured nanomaterials in medical technology. However, the animal consciousness has increased and become an issue for debate in recent years. Currently, the principle of the 3Rs (i.e., reduction, refinement, and replacement) is applied to ensure the more ethical application of humane animal research. In order to avoid unethical procedures, the strategy of alternatives to animal testing has been employed to overcome the drawbacks of animal experiments. This article provides current alternative strategies to replace or reduce the use of experimental animals in the assessment of nanotoxicity. The currently available alternative methods include in vitro and in silico approaches, which can be used as cost-effective approaches to meet the principle of the 3Rs. These methods are regarded as non-animal approaches and have been implemented in many countries for scientific purposes. The in vitro experiments related to nanotoxicity assays involve cell culture testing and tissue engineering, while the in silico methods refer to prediction using molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulations, and quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling. The commonly used novel cell-based methods and computational approaches have the potential to help minimize the use of experimental animals for nanomaterial toxicity assessments.

show abstract

Section: Tissue Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Strategies in Assessment of Nanotoxicity: Alternatives to In Vivo Animal Testing

Huang

Lee

Hsu

et al. 2021

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considering this, it is necessary to find materials that mimic the properties of biological tissues. Until now, different materials such as silicones, hydrogels, or photopolymer resins were studied [ 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]: PVA, PHY, agar, gelatine, alginate, hydrogels or Sylgard 527 (PDMS) and Sylgard 184 (Silicone Elastomer), as well as photopolymer resins for Additive Manufacturing (e.g., VeroWhite+, a rigid general purpose, high resolution, opaque white material; and TangoPlus+, which simulates thermoplastic elastomers with flexible, rubber-like qualities; both of them developed by Stratasys ® ). Additionally, it is worth mentioning that there are other biopolymeric materials such as aerogels that can be used for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine [ 24 , 25 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soft-Tissue-Mimicking Using Hydrogels for the Development of Phantoms

Tejo-Otero

Fenollosa-Artés

Achaerandio

et al. 2022

Gels

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the currently available materials and technologies it is difficult to mimic the mechanical properties of soft living tissues. Additionally, another significant problem is the lack of information about the mechanical properties of these tissues. Alternatively, the use of phantoms offers a promising solution to simulate biological bodies. For this reason, to advance in the state-of-the-art a wide range of organs (e.g., liver, heart, kidney as well as brain) and hydrogels (e.g., agarose, polyvinyl alcohol –PVA–, Phytagel –PHY– and methacrylate gelatine –GelMA–) were tested regarding their mechanical properties. For that, viscoelastic behavior, hardness, as well as a non-linear elastic mechanical response were measured. It was seen that there was a significant difference among the results for the different mentioned soft tissues. Some of them appear to be more elastic than viscous as well as being softer or harder. With all this information in mind, a correlation between the mechanical properties of the organs and the different materials was performed. The next conclusions were drawn: (1) to mimic the liver, the best material is 1% wt agarose; (2) to mimic the heart, the best material is 2% wt agarose; (3) to mimic the kidney, the best material is 4% wt GelMA; and (4) to mimic the brain, the best materials are 4% wt GelMA and 1% wt agarose. Neither PVA nor PHY was selected to mimic any of the studied tissues.

show abstract

“…The hydrosilylation reaction of LSR is presented in Figure 1. A number of different types of 3D printing techniques have been used to 3D print the silicone elastomers and their composites, such as direct ink writing (DIW) 3D printing [12][13][14][15][16][17], digital light synthesis (DLS) 3D printing [18,19], inkjet 3D printing [20], drop-on-demand [21,22] and even modified fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printing [7,23,24]. The silicone elastomers and their composites are potential candidate materials in a number of different applications including soft sensors, actuators, and vibration control systems, see Bastola and Hossain [25] for a thorough review.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D Printed Silicone Meniscus Implants: Influence of the 3D Printing Process on Properties of Silicone Implants

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Osteoarthritis of the knee with meniscal pathologies is a severe meniscal pathology suffered by the aging population worldwide. However, conventional meniscal substitutes are not 3D-printable and lack the customizability of 3D printed implants and are not mechanically robust enough for human implantation. Similarly, 3D printed hydrogel scaffolds suffer from drawbacks of being mechanically weak and as a result patients are unable to execute immediate post-surgical weight-bearing ambulation and rehabilitation. To solve this problem, we have developed a 3D silicone meniscus implant which is (1) cytocompatible, (2) resistant to cyclic loading and mechanically similar to native meniscus, and (3) directly 3D printable. The main focus of this study is to determine whether the purity, composition, structure, dimensions and mechanical properties of silicone implants are affected by the use of a custom-made in-house 3D-printer. We have used the phosphate buffer saline (PBS) absorption test, Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, surface profilometry, thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to effectively assess and compare material properties between molded and 3D printed silicone samples.

show abstract

3D printing tissue-mimicking materials for realistic transseptal puncture models

Cited by 29 publications

References 50 publications

Current Strategies in Assessment of Nanotoxicity: Alternatives to In Vivo Animal Testing

Current Strategies in Assessment of Nanotoxicity: Alternatives to In Vivo Animal Testing

Soft-Tissue-Mimicking Using Hydrogels for the Development of Phantoms

3D Printed Silicone Meniscus Implants: Influence of the 3D Printing Process on Properties of Silicone Implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About