A hybrid additive manufacturing method for the fabrication of silicone bio-structures: 3D printing optimization and surface characterization

Liravi, Farzad; Toyserkani, Ehsan

doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2017.10.051

Cited by 80 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The utilization of additive manufacturing technologies to develop highly customizable and application-oriented prototypes or mechanical parts have gained popularity in the past two decades [ 7 ]. More recently, even functional prototypes and end products have been made printable as the cost of 3D printers and inks became more affordable and more sophisticated softwares were developed [ 8 ].…”

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

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

show abstract

“…Consequently, theoretical modeling of viscosity through various nozzle designs is of critical importance. [16,194] Another direct silicone 3D printing approach, the Drop-on-Demand system (Wacker Chemie AG, Germany), selectively deposits material droplets onto a build area, which are then cured using a UV lamp. [4] Silicone prostheses fabricated using this method demonstrated an acceptable clinical fit due to the precision of the digital processing pipeline, however, the layer thickness of 0.4 mm preventing the achievement of the thin margins of traditionally produced nasal prosthetics which is important for blending with skin.…”

Section: Silicone For 3d Printingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[ 5,11 ] Although digital technology has been used in prosthetics for the past 30 years, [ 12,13 ] it is only the last decade that has seen its rapid development as part of the fourth industrial revolution. [ 14 ] This change in practice is evidenced by the significant fraction of recent literature describing advances in 3D printed prostheses, including technological advances [ 4,15–18 ] and clinical reports. [ 19,20 ] Further innovations involving collaborations between clinicians, academics, and industry, promise even greater capabilities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Past, Present, and Future of Soft‐Tissue Prosthetics: Advanced Polymers and Advanced Manufacturing

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

past 30 years, [12,13] it is only the last decade that has seen its rapid development as part of the fourth industrial revolution. [14] This change in practice is evidenced by the significant fraction of recent literature describing advances in 3D printed prostheses, including technological advances [4,15-18] and clinical reports. [19,20] Further innovations involving collaborations between clinicians, academics, and industry, promise even greater capabilities. The future will see 3D printers that can mix materials as desired during fabrication [21] and those that can 3D print organic semiconductors and piezoelectric polymers for sensing and bionics [22-24] (Figure 1). This report is focused on polymers for soft tissue, external, personalized, prosthetics with clinical applications for the ear, [25] nose, [26] eye, [27] face, [28] breast, [29] and hand. [30] The characteristics of both traditional and 3D printable polymeric materials, as well as current advanced manufacturing technologies and those in development, are also reviewed. The earliest evidence of prosthetics dates back to ≈2300 BC, where Egyptian mummies have been discovered with eye, nose, and genital reconstructions fashioned from plaster packed with mud, sand, linen, butter, or soda (Figure 1). [31] Wood, cloth, natural waxes, resins, and metals were later used as the material of choice for rudimentary prostheses. [32] Prostheses remained relatively unchanged for thousands of years until the 16th century, where prosthetic noses and eyes were made from parchment, wax, wood, hard rubber, gold, silver, and copper. [33] Metals continued as a fundamental material throughout the 19th century, largely due to their ability to be shaped and molded as needed. [34,35] One of the first polymers to be used in prosthetics, poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), was developed in response to the glass shortages in the World Wars of the 20th Century. [36] This polymer went on to become the most common prosthetic material of the time, and still finds use today in artificial eyes [33] and prosthetic substructures. [37] Further innovations in the 20th century produced many new polymers, such as vinyls, copolymers, plastisols, and one of the most significant materials in prosthetics, silicone. [38] Discovered in the early 1900s by Fredrick Kipping, silicone was first used in prosthetics by George W Barnhart in 1960. [39] This versatile polymer remains a primary prosthetic material today due to its soft tissue-like properties, ease of manipulation, chemical inertness, durability, and excellent biocompatibility. [40,41] The search for alternative materials Millions of people worldwide experience disfigurement due to cancers, congenital defects, or trauma, leading to significant psychological, social, and economic disadvantage. Prosthetics aim to reduce their suffering by restoring aesthetics and function using synthetic materials that mimic the characteristics of native tissue. In the 1900s, natural materials used for thousands of years in prosthetics were replaced by syntheti...

show abstract

“…Currently, most of the pharmaceutical AM stays in the lab scale and researchers were struggling on the prophase studies, such as developing the suitable materials, standard operation procedure (SOP), as well as experimental on the processing window for a variety of materials and machines. In the lab scale, the design of experiment (DoE) has been applied which can guide through the optimization of the pharmaceutical AM process (150,151). In the event pharmaceutical AM has been industrialized or commercialized, the QbD should be applied to provide guidance on pharmaceutical development to the facility, the design of products, and processes that maximize the product’s efficacy and safety profile while enhancing product manufacturability.…”

Section: Challenges and Future Perspectives Of Pharmaceutical Ammentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmaceutical Additive Manufacturing: a Novel Tool for Complex and Personalized Drug Delivery Systems

Zhang

Feng

et al. 2018

AAPS PharmSciTech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inter-individual variability is always an issue when treating patients of different races, genders, ages, pharmacogenetics, and pharmacokinetic characteristics. However, the development of novel dosage forms is limited by the huge investments required for production line modifications and dosages diversity. Additive manufacturing (AM) or 3D printing can be a novel alternative solution for the development of controlled release dosages because it can produce personalized or unique dosage forms and more complex drug-release profiles. The primary objective of this manuscript is to review the 3D printing processes that have been used in the pharmaceutical area, including their general aspects, materials, and the operation of each AM technique. Advantages and shortcomings of the technologies are discussed with respect to practice and practical applications. Thus, this review will provide an overview and discussion on advanced pharmaceutical AM technologies, which can be used to produce unique controlled drug delivery systems and personalized dosages for the future of personalized medicine.

show abstract

A hybrid additive manufacturing method for the fabrication of silicone bio-structures: 3D printing optimization and surface characterization

Cited by 80 publications

References 42 publications

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

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

Past, Present, and Future of Soft‐Tissue Prosthetics: Advanced Polymers and Advanced Manufacturing

Pharmaceutical Additive Manufacturing: a Novel Tool for Complex and Personalized Drug Delivery Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About