Cargando…

3D printing of bioreactors in tissue engineering: A generalised approach

3D printing is a rapidly evolving field for biological (bioprinting) and non-biological applications. Due to a high degree of freedom for geometrical parameters in 3D printing, prototype printing of bioreactors is a promising approach in the field of Tissue Engineering. The variety of printers, mate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gensler, Marius, Leikeim, Anna, Möllmann, Marc, Komma, Miriam, Heid, Susanne, Müller, Claudia, Boccaccini, Aldo R., Salehi, Sahar, Groeber-Becker, Florian, Hansmann, Jan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7703892/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33253240
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242615
_version_ 1783616711536148480
author Gensler, Marius
Leikeim, Anna
Möllmann, Marc
Komma, Miriam
Heid, Susanne
Müller, Claudia
Boccaccini, Aldo R.
Salehi, Sahar
Groeber-Becker, Florian
Hansmann, Jan
author_facet Gensler, Marius
Leikeim, Anna
Möllmann, Marc
Komma, Miriam
Heid, Susanne
Müller, Claudia
Boccaccini, Aldo R.
Salehi, Sahar
Groeber-Becker, Florian
Hansmann, Jan
author_sort Gensler, Marius
collection PubMed
description 3D printing is a rapidly evolving field for biological (bioprinting) and non-biological applications. Due to a high degree of freedom for geometrical parameters in 3D printing, prototype printing of bioreactors is a promising approach in the field of Tissue Engineering. The variety of printers, materials, printing parameters and device settings is difficult to overview both for beginners as well as for most professionals. In order to address this problem, we designed a guidance including test bodies to elucidate the real printing performance for a given printer system. Therefore, performance parameters such as accuracy or mechanical stability of the test bodies are systematically analysed. Moreover, post processing steps such as sterilisation or cleaning are considered in the test procedure. The guidance presented here is also applicable to optimise the printer settings for a given printer device. As proof of concept, we compared fused filament fabrication, stereolithography and selective laser sintering as the three most used printing methods. We determined fused filament fabrication printing as the most economical solution, while stereolithography is most accurate and features the highest surface quality. Finally, we tested the applicability of our guidance by identifying a printer solution to manufacture a complex bioreactor for a perfused tissue construct. Due to its design, the manufacture via subtractive mechanical methods would be 21-fold more expensive than additive manufacturing and therefore, would result in three times the number of parts to be assembled subsequently. Using this bioreactor we showed a successful 14-day-culture of a biofabricated collagen-based tissue construct containing human dermal fibroblasts as the stromal part and a perfusable central channel with human microvascular endothelial cells. Our study indicates how the full potential of biofabrication can be exploited, as most printed tissues exhibit individual shapes and require storage under physiological conditions, after the bioprinting process.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7703892
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77038922020-12-03 3D printing of bioreactors in tissue engineering: A generalised approach Gensler, Marius Leikeim, Anna Möllmann, Marc Komma, Miriam Heid, Susanne Müller, Claudia Boccaccini, Aldo R. Salehi, Sahar Groeber-Becker, Florian Hansmann, Jan PLoS One Research Article 3D printing is a rapidly evolving field for biological (bioprinting) and non-biological applications. Due to a high degree of freedom for geometrical parameters in 3D printing, prototype printing of bioreactors is a promising approach in the field of Tissue Engineering. The variety of printers, materials, printing parameters and device settings is difficult to overview both for beginners as well as for most professionals. In order to address this problem, we designed a guidance including test bodies to elucidate the real printing performance for a given printer system. Therefore, performance parameters such as accuracy or mechanical stability of the test bodies are systematically analysed. Moreover, post processing steps such as sterilisation or cleaning are considered in the test procedure. The guidance presented here is also applicable to optimise the printer settings for a given printer device. As proof of concept, we compared fused filament fabrication, stereolithography and selective laser sintering as the three most used printing methods. We determined fused filament fabrication printing as the most economical solution, while stereolithography is most accurate and features the highest surface quality. Finally, we tested the applicability of our guidance by identifying a printer solution to manufacture a complex bioreactor for a perfused tissue construct. Due to its design, the manufacture via subtractive mechanical methods would be 21-fold more expensive than additive manufacturing and therefore, would result in three times the number of parts to be assembled subsequently. Using this bioreactor we showed a successful 14-day-culture of a biofabricated collagen-based tissue construct containing human dermal fibroblasts as the stromal part and a perfusable central channel with human microvascular endothelial cells. Our study indicates how the full potential of biofabrication can be exploited, as most printed tissues exhibit individual shapes and require storage under physiological conditions, after the bioprinting process. Public Library of Science 2020-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7703892/ /pubmed/33253240 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242615 Text en © 2020 Gensler et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Gensler, Marius
Leikeim, Anna
Möllmann, Marc
Komma, Miriam
Heid, Susanne
Müller, Claudia
Boccaccini, Aldo R.
Salehi, Sahar
Groeber-Becker, Florian
Hansmann, Jan
3D printing of bioreactors in tissue engineering: A generalised approach
title 3D printing of bioreactors in tissue engineering: A generalised approach
title_full 3D printing of bioreactors in tissue engineering: A generalised approach
title_fullStr 3D printing of bioreactors in tissue engineering: A generalised approach
title_full_unstemmed 3D printing of bioreactors in tissue engineering: A generalised approach
title_short 3D printing of bioreactors in tissue engineering: A generalised approach
title_sort 3d printing of bioreactors in tissue engineering: a generalised approach
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7703892/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33253240
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242615
work_keys_str_mv AT genslermarius 3dprintingofbioreactorsintissueengineeringageneralisedapproach
AT leikeimanna 3dprintingofbioreactorsintissueengineeringageneralisedapproach
AT mollmannmarc 3dprintingofbioreactorsintissueengineeringageneralisedapproach
AT kommamiriam 3dprintingofbioreactorsintissueengineeringageneralisedapproach
AT heidsusanne 3dprintingofbioreactorsintissueengineeringageneralisedapproach
AT mullerclaudia 3dprintingofbioreactorsintissueengineeringageneralisedapproach
AT boccaccinialdor 3dprintingofbioreactorsintissueengineeringageneralisedapproach
AT salehisahar 3dprintingofbioreactorsintissueengineeringageneralisedapproach
AT groeberbeckerflorian 3dprintingofbioreactorsintissueengineeringageneralisedapproach
AT hansmannjan 3dprintingofbioreactorsintissueengineeringageneralisedapproach