Effects of extrusion pressure and printing speed of 3D bioprinted construct on the fibroblast cells viability

Fakhruddin, Khalida; Hamzah, Mohd Syahir Anwar; Razak, Saiful Izwan Abd

doi:10.1088/1757-899x/440/1/012042

Cited by 31 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Printing speed is another factor that affects the print quality and consequently the scaffold performance. In extrusion-based bioprinting process, the print speed and extrusion pressure interactively affect the strand diameter of the printing scaffold [274,275]. It has been indicated that printing at lower extrusion pressure needs a slower print speed while printing at higher extrusion pressure requires a faster print speed to obtain mechanically stable structure.…”

Section: D Printing Process Optimizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been indicated that printing at lower extrusion pressure needs a slower print speed while printing at higher extrusion pressure requires a faster print speed to obtain mechanically stable structure. Furthermore, higher pressure reduces the cell viability percentage [274,276]. Billiet et al [276] investigated the 3D bioprinting of gelatin methacrylamide cell-laden constructs using a new photoinitiator (VA-086).…”

Section: D Printing Process Optimizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Challenges on optimization of 3D-printed bone scaffolds

Bahraminasab

2020

BioMed Eng OnLine

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Bones in human body are prone to damage due to different causes such as fractures, diseases, and infections. Nevertheless, they have a remarkable capacity to repair and heal themselves after trauma and illness. Large defects, however, are never completely reinstated because their sizes are beyond the limit up to which the bones can repair [1]. In these conditions, therefore, a medical remedy is required to stabilize, align and support the damaged bone region to restore the lost function. Bone autografts are considered the gold standard treatment. However, they have a number of shortcomings including the limited sources and donor site morbidity. Allografts also have the risk of immune rejection and disease transmission [2, 3]. Therefore, the research has headed for other solutions via tissue engineering. Bone tissue engineering provides three-dimensional (3D)

show abstract

Section: D Printing Process Optimizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: D Printing Process Optimizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges on optimization of 3D-printed bone scaffolds

Bahraminasab

2020

BioMed Eng OnLine

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this regard, Fakhruddin et al have optimized a printing speed of 4 mm s −1 for their ink formulation on the EBB technique. [102] In EBB, shear stress generation inside the nozzle wall is expressed by a power law function for non-Newtonian fluids that correlates apparent shear rate with shear stress. However, the shear rate on nozzle wall is directly proportional to the deposition velocity and inversely proportional to the nozzle radius.…”

Section: 4 Printing Speed and Deposition Velocitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Processing Parameters of 3D Bioprinting on the Cellular Activity of Bioinks

Adhikari

Roy

Das

et al. 2020

Macromolecular Bioscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this review, few established cell printing techniques along with their parameters that affect the cell viability during bioprinting are considered. 3D bioprinting is developed on the principle of additive manufacturing using biomaterial inks and bioinks. Different bioprinting methods impose few challenges on cell printing such as shear stress, mechanical impact, heat, laser radiation, etc., which eventually lead to cell death. These factors also cause alteration of cells phenotype, recoverable or irrecoverable damages to the cells. Such challenges are not addressed in detail in the literature and scientific reports. Hence, this review presents a detailed discussion of several cellular bioprinting methods and their process‐related impacts on cell viability, followed by probable mitigation techniques. Most of the printable bioinks encompass cells within hydrogel as scaffold material to avoid the direct exposure of the harsh printing environment on cells. However, the advantages of printing with scaffold‐free cellular aggregates over cell‐laden hydrogels have emerged very recently. Henceforth, optimal and favorable crosslinking mechanisms providing structural rigidity to the cell‐laden printed constructs with ideal cell differentiation and proliferation, are discussed for improved understanding of cell printing methods for the future of organ printing and transplantation.

show abstract

“…In extrusion‐based printing of hydrogels or thermoplastics, the feature resolution of constructs is determined by the nozzle diameter. Although decreasing the nozzle diameter may increase the resolution of the structure when bioprinting, higher extrusion forces are required to extrude the material which has shown to negatively affect cell viability (Emmermacher et al, 2020; Fakhruddin, Hamzah, & Razak, 2018). Micro‐transfer molding on the other hand has demonstrated to be a rapid method to fabricate microstructures of high resolution onto collagen Type I hydrogels (Tang, Golden, & Tien, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High‐throughput 3D bioprinting of corneal stromal equivalents

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study we designed high‐throughput 3D bioprinting of corneal equivalents which may address the need for in vitro models. In our digital 3D cornea model, average dimensions of adult cornea were converted to 3D shapes, then to G‐code files which were printed by BIOX printer (CELLINK). To maintain the curvature of cornea, a support scaffold was designed using stereolithographic printer. The support scaffold could facilitate the printing of 6–12 corneas at a time thus enabling high‐throughput printing. Human corneal keratocytes (HCKs) were incorporated in the optimized bio‐ink, and cell‐laden corneal stromal equivalents were printed. Printed structures were cross‐linked by calcium chloride 100 mM, washed with Hanks' Balanced Salt Solution and incubated at 37°C in fibroblast media. Printed corneas were analyzed for live dead assay, Alamar assay, and expression of fibronectin and actin green markers. Printed corneas were able to maintain their structure, integrity, and clarity. Live dead assay and Alamar assay demonstrated that HCKs maintained high viability (>95%) for 2 weeks. HCKs in the printed corneas showed expression for fibronectin and actin green. In conclusion, high‐throughput fabrication of 3D printed corneal stromal equivalents using a combination of stereolithography printing, extrusion based printing, and micro‐transfer molding techniques was achieved.

show abstract

Effects of extrusion pressure and printing speed of 3D bioprinted construct on the fibroblast cells viability

Cited by 31 publications

References 5 publications

Challenges on optimization of 3D-printed bone scaffolds

Challenges on optimization of 3D-printed bone scaffolds

Effects of Processing Parameters of 3D Bioprinting on the Cellular Activity of Bioinks

High‐throughput 3D bioprinting of corneal stromal equivalents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About