Biocompatibility of Blank, Post-Processed and Coated 3D Printed Resin Structures with Electrogenic Cells

Abstract

The widespread adaptation of 3D printing in the microfluidic, bioelectronic, and Bio-MEMS communities has been stifled by the lack of investigation into the biocompatibility of commercially available printer resins. By introducing an in-depth post-printing treatment of these resins, their biocompatibility can be dramatically improved up to that of a standard cell culture vessel (99.99%). Additionally, encapsulating resins that are less biocompatible with materials that are common constituents in biosensors further enhances the biocompatibility of the material. This investigation provides a clear pathway toward developing fully functional and biocompatible 3D printed biosensor devices, especially for interfacing with electrogenic cells, utilizing benchtop-based microfabrication, and post-processing techniques.

Rapid Fabrication by Digital Light Processing 3D Printing of a SlipChip with Movable Ports for Local Delivery to Ex Vivo Organ Cultures

“…We anticipate that this DLP 3D printing fabrication method will enable the polymeric SlipChips, and in particular the movable port technology, to become accessible to other labs, by greatly simplifying the fabrication steps, materials, and time. Continued advances in biocompatibility of DLP resins [ 47 , 48 , 49 ] may eventually enable longer-term culture on the 3D printed chip, which was a limitation here. Furthermore, while the current device used binder clips, visual alignment, and manual slipping, 3D printing may enable rapid iteration in the future of other clamping methods and pre-programmed integration with manipulators.…”

The Field Guide to 3D Printing in Microscopy

“…3D printed parts used for these applications require biocompatible materials that do not alter the physiology of the cells. While many strategies to ensure biocompatibility exist, generally using ethanol washes together with epoxy resin appears to provide the best results, even when using clear materials (88). Depending on the sample holder's nature or biological cage, autoclavable material might be useful for priorand post-sterilisation during experiments.…”

“…Lately, surface coating with Hydrophobic Epoxy Resins has been shown to improve biocompatibility (88,151). Although epoxy resins require extra steps of preparation, they can dramatically increase the printed object's biocompatibility, up to the standard of commercially available cell culture vessels.…”

“…These steps include curing the resin by heating overnight at 45ºC followed by PBS and ethanol washing steps. Epoxy resins are also compatible with transparent materials, making them a suitable candidate to combine with cell culture vessels (88). Thus, although many 3D printed materials are not biocompatible right after the printing process, most can be made biocompatible through post-processing.…”

Applied tutorial for the design and fabrication of biomicrofluidic devices by resin 3D printing

“…Custom, house-made resin formulations may be able to minimize the amount of necessary experimental compromises, though these may not yet be widely available, and rely on individual laboratories having the ability to produce them. [25][26][27] For commercial resins, resolutions to diminish resin cytotoxicity have started to emerge recently, [28][29][30] along with solutions addressing print resolution, 26,[31][32][33] imaging compatibility, 25,32,34 and other surface modification and bonding. 35,36 Sifting through this literature for best practices can be challenging for researchers who are new to this rapidly growing field, who would especially benefit from more head-to-head comparisons and a systematic analysis of some of the factors that affect biomicrofluidic design in SL printing.…”