Recent Advances in Formulating and Processing Biomaterial Inks for Vat Polymerization‐Based 3D Printing

Abstract

Abstract3D printing and bioprinting have become a key component in precision medicine. They have been used toward the fabrication of medical devices with patient‐specific shapes, production of engineered tissues for in vivo regeneration, and preparation of in vitro tissue models used for screening therapeutics. In particular, vat polymerization‐based 3D (bio)printing as a unique strategy enables more sophisticated architectures to be rapidly built. This progress report aims to emphasize the recent advances made in vat polymerization‐based 3D printing and bioprinting, including new biomaterial ink formulations and novel vat polymerization system designs. While some of these approaches have not been utilized toward the combination with biomaterial inks, it is anticipated their rapid translation into biomedical applications.

Sustainable Photopolymers in 3D Printing: A Review on Biobased, Biodegradable, and Recyclable Alternatives

“…[ 7 ] Commercially available photopolymer resins for 3D printing are generally based on epoxides or acrylates produced from fossil resources, having a relatively large carbon footprint. [ 8,9 ] Moreover, photopolymerization leads to thermosetting products that are intrinsically not recyclable or (biologically) degradable, due to their crosslinked macromolecular network. [ 10,11 ] Their unprocessable nature combined with the increasing demand for AM materials will result in serious waste management problems.…”

3D Printing for Soft Tissue Regeneration and Applications in Medicine

“…In the top-down process, the laser source is located above the vat and the construction platform moves down a defined length for each newly cured resin layer. In the bottom-up process, the laser source beams through the transparent bottom of the vat and the construction platform moves upward accordingly in the printing process [ 45 , 46 ]. Both methods have individual advantages and disadvantages.…”

“…At the same time, the light source can hit the respective resin layer directly. In this way, disruptive factors on the laser energy such as scratching or soiling of the bottom of the vat as they can appear in the bottom-up method can also be avoided [ 45 ]. At the same time, the bottom-up variant is usually more cost-effective, as it needs less resin for printing and enables objects of smaller volumes to be printed [ 45 , 46 ].…”

“…However, through constant research and further development, more and more biocompatible and photocurable materials are being created. The most prevalent resins in the medical field of application are multifunctional monomers made from methacrylates or acrylic esters with a low molecular weight (e.g., gelatin methacrylate (GelMA) or polyethylenglycol (PEG)) as they have the biocompatibility required for use in the human organism [ 42 , 45 , 46 ]. These materials come with the disadvantage that uncured resin residues can remain in the individual layers and thus negatively affect the mechanical stability of the structure [ 47 ].…”

SARS-CoV-2-related vascular injury: mechanisms, imaging and models

“…To resolve this issue, 3D bioprinting technology has emerged as a pivotal strategy to build volumetric constructs in precise geometries with various cell types and extracellular matrix (ECM) materials in an automated manner ( 49 , 50 ). In vascular 3D bioprinting, bioinks containing vascular cells and biochemical factors can be used to produce volumetric tissue constructs containing perfusable vascular networks.…”