Page 63 - IJB-4-2

Tan C, et al.

table 1. Summary of key advantages and limitations of food printers.

Food Printer Key advantage Key limitation
Procusini 3.0 Dual Easy cartridge refilling, magnetic bed Low capacity
Choc Creator V2.0 Plus Wireless on-board interface Only prints chocolate
Ultimaker 2+ and Discov3ry 2.0 Dual-feed mixing Extruder housed in external enclosure
Foodini Independent temperature control Time consuming to change material
F3D Cooking lamp Printing has to pause when cooking
Fab@Home Model 3.0 Modular Open-source, IP not protected
Sanna Robot Arm Small printing area
F5 High capacity storage tank Prints only 1 material at a time
QiaoKe Continuous operation Only prints chocolate
BeeHex Printer Self-cleaning Complexity of cleaning system
PancakeBot 2.0 Non-drip Prints only 1 material at a time
The 3D Everything Concept Printer Non-clogging nozzle Concept, no public example in use yet
Barilla Pasta Printer Simple ingredients Only prints pasta
Zmorph 2.0 VX and Thick paste extruder Layer correction No heating

4. conclusion References

In conclusion, the printability and print fidelity of pureed 1. Eglseer D, Halfens R J G, Schols J M G A, et al., 2018,
foods can be improved by addition of hydrocolloids. Dysphagia in hospitalised older patients: Associated factors
Due to the complexity of each food material that one and nutritional interventions. J Nutr Health Aging, 22: 103–
intends to 3D-print, there is no single solution that can
be applied to all foods. Thus, there is still very much 110.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-017-0928-x
room for further research in this area. In future, it would 2. Masiero S, Carraro U, 2018, Rehabilitation of Older People
be worthwhile to start such investigations with 1) the with Swallowing Disorders, in Rehabilitation Medicine for
selection of hydrocolloid(s), 2) the optimal ratios of the Elderly Patients. Practical Issues in Geriatrics. Springer,
selected hydrocolloid(s) and 3) the minimum content Cham, 365–377.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57406-6
of total hydrocolloid that can produce a 3D-printed
food of acceptable printability and print fidelity. With 3. Gordon C, Hewer R L, Wade D T, 1987, Dysphagia in acute
regards to development of new 3D printers, the list of stroke. Br Med J, 295: 411–414.https://doi.org/10.1136/
characteristics in Section 3.2 is non-exhaustive and bmj.295.6595.411
only provides a preliminary guideline for what might 4. Smithard D G, O’Neill P A, England R E, et al., 1997, The
be possible to achieve given the current technological natural history of dysphagia following a stroke. Dysphagia,
developments. Furthermore, some characteristics may 12: 188–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00009535
seem to conflict with each other. For example, a printer
with a large volume container for holding food material 5. Mann G, Hankey G J, Cameron D, 1999, Swallowing
will definitely require more time to clean than a printer Function After Stroke. Prognosis and Prognostic Factors at
with a small storage. Thus, printer development should 6 Months. Stroke, 30: 744–748. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.
be done with a targeted application in mind. STR.30.4.744
Conflict Of Interest 6. Werbaneth K, Shum J, Deane S, et al., 2018, Reducing
No conflict of interest was reported by all authors. Costs and Length of Stay Using Standardized Dysphagia
Evaluation in Acute Stroke Patients. Stroke, 49: A140.http://
Acknowledgements stroke.ahajournals.org/content/49/Suppl_1/A140
This research is supported by the National Research 7. Carnaby G, Hankey G J, Pizzi J, 2006, Behavioural
Foundation, Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore under its intervention for dysphagia in acute stroke: A randomised
Medium-Sized Centre funding scheme. controlled trial. Lancet Neurol, 5: 31–37. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S1474-4422(05)70252-0

International Journal of Bioprinting (2018)–Volume 4, Issue 2 11