Development and characterization of a low-cost 3D bioprinter

Yenilmez, Bekir; Temirel, Mikail; Knowlton, Stephanie; Lepowsky, Eric; Tasoğlu, Savaş

doi:10.1016/j.bprint.2019.e00044

Cited by 40 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Soon thereafter, Goldstein et al (2016) turned a desktop 3D printer (the MakerBot Replicator R from MakerBot Industries, NY, United States) into a bioprinter; however, the cost of this system was not cheap as the MakerBot alone costs ∼2,000$ while the printing resolution and cell culture experiments were not sufficiently characterized in this study. Another study obtained better printing resolution using a hybrid bioprinter with both inkjet and extrusion print heads; however, this printer costs $1,370 and is too complicated to be replicated as it was based on a three axis CNC machine, a custom-made controller and DIY mechanical parts (Yenilmez et al, 2019). Newer studies have used the Prusa i3 (Bessler et al, 2019) and the Felix 3.0 3D (Reid et al, 2016(Reid et al, , 2019 printers to increase the printing resolution; these printers cost ∼850$ and ∼$1,700, respectively, before their conversion.…”

Section: Comparison To Previously Published Diy Bioprintersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, current commercially available 3D bioprinters have a high cost (10,000-150,000$) and low customization capacity, while they also require costly consumables and highly skilled staff for operation and maintenance, limiting their applicability. In this regard, many researchers have tried to develop low cost 3D bioprinters based on different extrusion methods and materials (Mielczarek et al, 2015;Wang et al, 2015;Goldstein et al, 2016;Reid et al, 2016Reid et al, , 2019Madihally and Roehm, 2017;Schmieden et al, 2018;Bessler et al, 2019;Kahl et al, 2019;Yenilmez et al, 2019). However, a 3D custom made bioprinter that is open source, ultra-low cost and easy to set up and operate, along with an evaluation of its applications for developing models in stem cell research, has not yet been reported.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Ioannidis

Danalatos

Tsaniras

et al. 2020

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 width, spreading ratio and extrusion uniformity measurements, along with the rheological properties of the bioinks were analyzed, revealing high bioprinting accuracy within the printability window. Following the bioprinting process, cell survival and proliferation were validated on HeLa Kyoto and HEK293T cell lines. In addition, we isolated and 3D bioprinted postnatal neural stem cell progenitors derived from the mouse subventricular zone as well as mesenchymal stem cells derived from mouse bone marrow. Our results suggest that our low-cost 3D bioprinter can support cell proliferation and differentiation of two different types of primary stem cell populations, indicating that it can be used as a reliable tool for developing efficient research models for stem cell research and tissue engineering.

show abstract

Section: Comparison To Previously Published Diy Bioprintersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Ioannidis

Danalatos

Tsaniras

et al. 2020

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cell viability characterization was based on our previous work [ 51 ]. Briefly, calcein AM (stains live cells green) and ethidium homodimer-1 (EthD, stains dead cells red) stains were used (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… ( a – f ) Images of our custom hybrid bioprinter developed previously and given here for completeness. Reproduced with permission from [ 51 ]. The custom printer includes a cell-laden droplet dispenser for inkjet 3D bioprinting, a UV light source for photo-crosslinking, and a coaxial head for extrusion-based 3D bioprinting.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…We characterized the concentration of CNC- and CNF-based hydrogels and printing parameters, such as pneumatic pressure, nozzle speed, and line thickness, to achieve the best shape fidelity with our custom-made bioprinter [ 51 ]. We also characterized the rheological properties of optimized hydrogels, such as viscosity and storage-loss modulus, and performed mechanical characterization of 3D printed and cross-linked patch samples through mechanical loading.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Shape Fidelity of 3D-Bioprinted Biodegradable Patches

Temirel

Hawxhurst

2021

Micromachines

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is high demand in the medical field for rapid fabrication of biodegradable patches at low cost and high throughput for various instant applications, such as wound healing. Bioprinting is a promising technology, which makes it possible to fabricate custom biodegradable patches. However, several challenges with the physical and chemical fidelity of bioprinted patches must be solved to increase the performance of patches. Here, we presented two hybrid hydrogels made of alginate-cellulose nanocrystal (CNC) (2% w/v alginate and 4% w/v CNC) and alginate-TEMPO oxidized cellulose nanofibril (T-CNF) (4% w/v alginate and 1% w/v T-CNC) via ionic crosslinking using calcium chloride (2% w/v). These hydrogels were rheologically characterized, and printing parameters were tuned for improved shape fidelity for use with an extrusion printing head. Young’s modulus of 3D printed patches was found to be 0.2–0.45 MPa, which was between the physiological ranges of human skin. Mechanical fidelity of patches was assessed through cycling loading experiments that emulate human tissue motion. 3D bioprinted patches were exposed to a solution mimicking the body fluid to characterize the biodegradability of patches at body temperature. The biodegradation of alginate-CNC and alginate-CNF was around 90% and 50% at the end of the 30-day in vitro degradation trial, which might be sufficient time for wound healing. Finally, the biocompatibility of the hydrogels was tested by cell viability analysis using NIH/3T3 mouse fibroblast cells. This study may pave the way toward improving the performance of patches and developing new patch material with high physical and chemical fidelity for instant application.

show abstract

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Analysis of Bioprinting

Fareez,

Naqvi,

Mahmud

et al. 2024

Adv Healthcare Materials

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid evolution of healthcare and technology has given rise to advancements in the fields of bioprinting, tissue engineering, and regenerative medicine. 3D bioprinting has emerged as an alternative to traditional practices by offering the potential to create functional tissues. Traditional tissue engineering has faced challenges due to irregular cell distribution on scaffolds, limited cell density, and the difficulty of manufacturing patient‐specific tissues, which 3D bioprinting overcomes through layer‐by‐layer fabrication. This has immense significance for addressing organ shortages and enhancing transplant options for the future. 3D printing fully functional organs is a far‐sighted dream; however, the field is moving in the right direction, and research is being done to shorten the gap between the dream and reality. Notably, bioprinting's precision and compatibility with complex geometries have fueled its demand for lab‐grown tissue constructs. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), a cornerstone of engineering, finds relevance in diverse sectors, including bioengineering. Its cost‐effectiveness and accurate simulation capabilities have drawn attention to its application in bioprinting research. CFD plays a pivotal role in optimizing 3D bioprinting by testing parameters like shear stress, diffusivity, and cell viability. This reduces the need for repetitive experiments, curbing costs and time. CFD simulations also enable the analysis of flow behaviors and material deformation under stress, aiding in material selection and bioprinter nozzle design. This review delves into recent applications of CFD in 3D bioprinting, shedding light on its potential to enhance the performance of this technology. Through this integration, CFD offers a pathway to advancing bioprinting, thus contributing to the evolution of regenerative medicine and healthcare.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

show abstract

Development and characterization of a low-cost 3D bioprinter

Cited by 40 publications

References 27 publications

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

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

Shape Fidelity of 3D-Bioprinted Biodegradable Patches

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Analysis of Bioprinting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About