Comparison of the potential for bioprinting of different 3D printing technologies
Additive manufacturing technologies offer a multitude of medical applications due to the advances in the development of the materials used to reproduce customized model products. The main problem with these technologies is obtaining the correct cell viability values, and it is where three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting emerges as a very interesting tool that should be studied extensively, as it has significant disadvantages with respect to printability. In this work, the comparison of 3D bioprinting technology in hydrogels and thermoplastics for the development of biomimetic parts is proposed. To this end, the study of the printability of different materials widely used in the literature is proposed, to subsequently test and analyze the parameters that indicate whether these materials could be used to obtain a biomimetic structure with structural guarantees. In order to analyze the materials studied, different tools have been designed to facilitate the quantitative characterization of their printability using 3D printing. For this purpose, different structures have been developed and a characterization methodology has been followed to quantify the printability value of each material in each test to subsequently discard the materials that do not obtain a minimum value in the result. After the study, it was found that only gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) 5% could generate biomimetic structures faithful to the designed 3D model. Furthermore, by comparing the printing results of the different materials used in 3D bioprinting and consequently establishing the approach of different strategies, it is shown that hydrogels need to be further developed to match the results achieved by thermoplastic materials used for bioprinting.
1. Derby B, 2012, Printing and prototyping of tissues and scaffolds. Science (1979), 338(6109):921–926. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1226340
2. Robson AJ, 2005, Complex evolutionary systems and the Red Queen. Econ J, 115(504):211–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-0297.2005.01002.X
3. Yang Y, Song X, li X, et al., 2018, Recent progress in biomimetic additive manufacturing technology: From materials to functional structures. Adv Mater, 30(36):1706539. https://doi.org/10.1002/ADMA.201706539
4. López RA, 2018, Impresión 3D y sus aplicaciones en Medicina. [Online]. Available: www.timetoast.com/timelines/linea-del-
5. Zhu Y, Joralmon D, Shan W, et al., 2021, 3D printing biomimetic materials and structures for biomedical applications. Biodes Manuf, 4(2):405–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/S42242-020-00117-0
6. Ma PX, 2008, Biomimetic materials for tissue engineering. Adv Drug Deliv Rev, 60(2):184. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDR.2007.08.041
7. Ghorbani F, Li D, Zhong Z, et al., 2021, Bioprinting a cell-laden matrix for bone regeneration: A focused review. J Appl Polym Sci, 138(8):49888. https://doi.org/10.1002/APP.49888
8. Rodríguez JM, Rodríguez JM, Sánchez R, et al., 2021, Development of a device for the control of variables in the bioprinting of hydrogels. 6–9.
9. Lauzurica S, Rocío S, Simón C, 2020, Lucía González Yeguas. [Online]. Available. https://oa.upm.es/65708/
10. Vijayavenkataraman S, Yan WC, Lu WF, et al., 2018, 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs for regenerative medicine. Adv Drug Deliv Rev, 132:296–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDR.2018.07.004
11. Noohi P, Mahdavi SS, Abdekhodaie MJ, et al., 2023, Photoreactive hydrogels based on type I collagen extracted from different sources as scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: A comparative study. Materialia (Oxf), 27:101651. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MTLA.2022.101651
12. Nguyen AK, Goering PL, Elespuru RK, et al., 2020, The photoinitiator lithium phenyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphinate with exposure to 405 nm light is cytotoxic to mammalian cells but not mutagenic in bacterial reverse mutation assays. Polymers (Basel), 12(7):1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/POLYM12071489
13. Huang J, Chen L, Gu Z, et al., 2019, Red jujube-incorporated gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels with anti-oxidation and immunoregulation activity for wound healing. J Biomed Nanotechnol, 15:1357–1370. https://doi.org/10.1166/jbn.2019.2815
14. Komez A, Baran ET, Erdem U, et al., 2016, Construction of a patterned hydrogel-fibrous mat bilayer structure to mimic choroid and Bruch’s membrane layers of retina. J Biomed Mater Res A, 104( 9):2166–2177. https://doi.org/10.1002/JBM.A.35756
15. Griffanti G, Nazhat SN, 2020, Dense fibrillar collagen-based hydrogels as functional osteoid-mimicking scaffolds. Int Mater Rev, 65(8):502–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/09506608.2020.1735828
16. Zhang Q, Tang Q, Yang Y, et al., 2021, Wound dressing gel with resisted bacterial penetration and enhanced re-epithelization for corneal epithelial-stromal regeneration. Appl Mater Today, 24:101119. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APMT.2021.101119
17. Bodenberger N, Kubiczek D, Rosenau F, 2017, Easy manipulation of architectures in protein-based hydrogels for cell culture applications. J Vis Exp, 2017(126):55813. https://doi.org/10.3791/55813
18. Yue K, Trujillo-de Santiago G, Alvarez MM, et al., 2015, Synthesis, properties, and biomedical applications of gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels. Biomaterials, 73:254–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOMATERIALS.2015.08.045
19. Hafezi F, Shorter S, Ghanizadeh A, et al., 2020, Bioprinting and preliminary testing of highly reproducible novel bioink for potential skin regeneration. Pharmaceutics, 12(6):550. https://doi.org/10.3390/PHARMACEUTICS12060550
20. Ma K, Zhao T, Yang L, et al., 2020, Application of robotic-assisted in situ 3D printing in cartilage regeneration with HAMA hydrogel: An in vivo study. J Adv Res, 23:123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JARE.2020.01.010
21. Borkar T, Goenka V, Jaiswal AK, 2021, Application of poly- ε-caprolactone in extrusion-based bioprinting. Bioprinting, 21:e00111. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BPRINT.2020.E00111
22. Danielson KG, Martinez-Hernandez A, Hassell JR, et al., 1992, Establishment of a cell line from the EHS tumor: Biosynthesis of basement membrane constituents and characterization of a hybrid proteoglycan containing heparan and chondroitin sulfate chains. Matrix, 12(1): 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0934-8832(11)80101-0
23. Passaniti A, Kleinman HK, Martin GR, 2021, Matrigel: History/background, uses, and future applications. J Cell Commun Signal, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12079-021-00643-1/FIGURES/4
24. Kiran MS, Karanam HKR, Prabu SS, 2022, Experimental and thermal analysis of desktop FDM 3D printers ‘Ender 3’ and ‘CR-10S Pro’ hot ends. ECS Trans, 107(1):12851–12862. https://doi.org/10.1149/10701.12851ECST/XML
25. Patel DK, Dutta SD, Shin WC, et al., 2021, Fabrication and characterization of 3D printable nanocellulose-based hydrogels for tissue engineering. RSC Adv, 11(13): 7466–7478. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RA09620B
26. Morena S, Barba S, Álvaro-Tordesillas A, 2019, SHINING 3D Einscan-pro, application and validation in the field of cultural heritage, from the Chillida-leku museum to the archaeological museum of Sarno. in The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 1–8. ht tp s : / / d oi . o rg / 1 0 . 5 1 9 4 / i spr s - a rch ive s - X L I I - 2-W18-135-2019
27. Kiyotake EA, Douglas AW, Thomas EE, et al., 2019, Development and quantitative characterization of the precursor rheology of hyaluronic acid hydrogels for bioprinting. Acta Biomater, 95:176–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTBIO.2019.01.041
28. Mancha E, Gómez JC, López E, et al., 2020, “Hydrogels for bioprinting: A systematic review of hydrogels synthesis, bioprinting parameters, and bioprinted structures behavior. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 8:776. https://doi.org/10.3389/FBIOE.2020.00776/BIBTEX
29. Matamoros M, Gómez JC, Sánchez AJ, et al., 2020, Temperature and humidity PID controller for a bioprinter atmospheric enclosure system. Micromachines, 11(11):999. https://doi.org/10.3390/MI11110999
30. Esquivel M, 2021, Lopretti M, Roberto Vega-Baudrit J, Hidrogeles híbridos de quitosano y polietilenglicol (QUIT:PEG) para potenciales aplicaciones biomédicas. [Online]. Available. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351765144
31. Barrido DE, Caracterización superficial de aleaciones para implantes mediante técnicas espectroscópicas y microscopía electrónica de barrido.
32. Mehdizadeh M, Kumar H, Mohamed MGA, et al., 2021, Polyether ether ketone surface modification with plasma and gelatin for enhancing cell attachment. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 109(5):622–629. https://doi.org/10.1002/JBM.B.34726
33. Nacional De Córdoba U, Integrador P, Morello A, et al., Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales MATERIAL DE BIOIMPRESIÓN 3D.
34. Kyle S, Jessop ZM, Al-Sabah A, et al., 2017, “Printability” of candidate biomaterials for extrusion based 3D printing: State-of-the-art. Adv Healthc Mater, 6(16):1700264. https://doi.org/10.1002/ADHM.201700264
35. Habib MA, Khoda B, 2018, Development of clay based novel bio-ink for 3D bio-printing process. Procedia Manuf, 26:846–856. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROMFG.2018.07.105
36. Silva Beltrá E, 2019, Obtención y caracterización de un material compuesto de PCL/MWCNT/nHA por impresión 3D. Instituto Tecnológico de Zacatepec, Zacatepec, Morelos.