Dataset Information

A high performance open-source syringe extruder optimized for extrusion and retraction during FRESH 3D bioprinting

ABSTRACT: Recent advances in embedded 3D bioprinting have significantly improved the resolution of individual filaments to below 100 μm; however, printing with such small filaments requires accurate extrusion of nanoliter volumes of bioink. Commercially available bioprinters and extruders are expensive and most utilize pneumatic control, which limits the minimum extrusion volume and prevents retraction (pulling bioink back into the reservoir), which is essential to printing high resolution features and complex internal geometry. Here we present a new generation of our open-source syringe pump designed for extrusion-based 3D bioprinting of soft materials: the Replistruder 4. The Replistruder 4 takes advantage of the geometry customizability and ease of 3D plastic printing while improving performance by integrating mass produced high-precision linear motion components. Simultaneously this new syringe pump remains compact and lightweight enough for several to be utilized on a 3D bioprinter for multimaterial bioprinting. To facilitate multiple use cases the Replistruder 4 is compatible with a range of syringes including disposable BD and Hamilton gastight syringes. In addition, we describe the process of designing clamps for other syringes. We demonstrate the performance of a Replistruder 4 with a 2.5 mL Hamilton gastight syringe by printing collagen type I constructs with individual filaments comprising 3.35 nL and patent channels down to 300 μm in width. With smaller volume Hamilton gastight syringes this performance can be further improved. Thus, the Replistruder 4 provides an open-source solution to print soft materials at the resolution limits of current embedded bioprinting platforms.

SUBMITTER: Tashman J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8570565 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose: Bioprinting is becoming an increasingly popular platform technology for engineering a variety of tissue types. Our aim was to identify biomaterials that have been found to be suitable for extrusion 3D bioprinting, outline their biomechanical properties and biocompatibility towards their application for bioprinting specific tissue types. This systematic review provides an in-depth overview of current biomaterials suitable for extrusion to aid bioink selection for specific research purposes and facilitate design of novel tailored bioinks. Methods: A systematic search was performed on EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases according to the PRISMA guidelines. References of relevant articles, between December 2006 to January 2018, on candidate bioinks used in extrusion 3D bioprinting were reviewed by two independent investigators against standardised inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data was extracted on bioprinter brand and model, printing technique and specifications (speed and resolution), bioink material and class of mechanical assessment, cell type, viability, and target tissue. Also noted were authors, study design (in vitro/in vivo), study duration and year of publication. Results: A total of 9,720 studies were identified, 123 of which met inclusion criteria, consisting of a total of 58 reports using natural biomaterials, 26 using synthetic biomaterials and 39 using a combination of biomaterials as bioinks. Alginate (n = 50) and PCL (n = 33) were the most commonly used bioinks, followed by gelatin (n = 18) and methacrylated gelatin (GelMA) (n = 16). Pneumatic extrusion bioprinting techniques were the most common (n = 78), followed by piston (n = 28). The majority of studies focus on the target tissue, most commonly bone and cartilage, and investigate only one bioink rather than assessing a range to identify those with the most promising printability and biocompatibility characteristics. The Bioscaffolder (GeSiM, Germany), 3D Discovery (regenHU, Switzerland), and Bioplotter (EnvisionTEC, Germany) were the most commonly used commercial bioprinters (n = 35 in total), but groups most often opted to create their own in-house devices (n = 20). Many studies also failed to specify whether the mechanical data reflected pre-, during or post-printing, pre- or post-crosslinking and with or without cells. Conclusions: Despite the continued increase in the variety of biocompatible synthetic materials available, there has been a shift change towards using natural rather than synthetic bioinks for extrusion bioprinting, dominated by alginate either alone or in combination with other biomaterials. On qualitative analysis, no link was demonstrated between the type of bioink or extrusion technique and the target tissue, indicating that bioprinting research is in its infancy with no established tissue specific bioinks or bioprinting techniques. Further research is needed on side-by-side characterisation of bioinks with standardisation of the type and timing of biomechanical assessment.

Dataset Information

A high performance open-source syringe extruder optimized for extrusion and retraction during FRESH 3D bioprinting

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets