2020
DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.580889
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Custom Ultra-Low-Cost 3D Bioprinter Supports Cell Growth and Differentiation

Abstract: Advances in 3D bioprinting have allowed the use of stem cells along with biomaterials and growth factors toward novel tissue engineering approaches. However, the cost of these systems along with their consumables is currently extremely high, limiting their applicability. To address this, we converted a 3D printer into an open source 3D bioprinter and produced a customized bioink based on accessible alginate/gelatin precursors, leading to a cost-effective solution. The bioprinter's resolution, including line wi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
34
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
1
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Interestingly, chondrogenic differentiation of hKACs and GAGs content was observed in the whole assembled platform together with higher expression of collagens I and II compared to one-layer scaffold, suggesting the strong communication and coordination of cells throughout the different architectures of layers [ 184 ]. Despite the abovementioned advantages, it has to be mentioned that current commercially available 3D bioprinters still have a high cost ($10,000–150,000), low customization capacity and require costly consumables, not forgetting the necessity of the high workforce for maintenance, limiting their possible application [ 187 ].…”
Section: Nanostructured Biomaterialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interestingly, chondrogenic differentiation of hKACs and GAGs content was observed in the whole assembled platform together with higher expression of collagens I and II compared to one-layer scaffold, suggesting the strong communication and coordination of cells throughout the different architectures of layers [ 184 ]. Despite the abovementioned advantages, it has to be mentioned that current commercially available 3D bioprinters still have a high cost ($10,000–150,000), low customization capacity and require costly consumables, not forgetting the necessity of the high workforce for maintenance, limiting their possible application [ 187 ].…”
Section: Nanostructured Biomaterialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Han et al, used chitosan and gelatin-based hydrogels to establish an NSC/ependymal cell co-culture system and showcased that gelatin promoted angiogenesis in this application and that their hydrogels can be injectable (Han et al, 2019). In a similar manner, a previous study generated from our laboratory utilized a mixture of alginate and gelatin-based bioink, in order to biofabricate an early 3D model of the SVZ niche (Ioannidis et al, 2020) using a custom-made 3D bioprinter. GelMA, a hydrogel consisting of gelatin methacryloyl with UV crosslinking capability, is also utilized in many research articles for the development of NSC niches with biofabrication approaches.…”
Section: Hydrogels and Decellularized Ecm As Bioinksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Current research on μ-extrusion bioprinting mechanics is focused on two pathways, minimizing the costs and obtaining the best shape fidelity by using piston driven extrusion. In this sense, authors have been developing and adapting new piston-driven extrusion-head for conventional 3D printers [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ] or developing new bioprinters [ 25 , 26 ]. New adapted extrusion-heads are usually based on a design proposed by Wijnen et al [ 27 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%