Page 326 - IJB-9-1

International Journal of Bioprinting Sterilization effect on 3D printed inks

18. Puertas-Bartolomé M, Włodarczyk-Biegun MK, del Campo 32. Hamid OA, Eltaher HM, Sottile V, et al., 2021, 3D bioprinting
A, et al., 2020, 3D printing of a reactive hydrogel bio-ink of a stem cell-laden, multi-material tubular composite: An
using a static mixing tool. Polymers, 12: 1986. approach for spinal cord repair. Mater Sci Eng C, 120: 111707.
19. Lorson T, Ruopp M, Nadernezhad A, et al., 2020, Sterilization 33. Hooper R, Arish AA, Alejandre RT, et al., 2022, Chaotic
methods and their influence on physicochemical properties printing of hydrogel carriers for human mesenchymal stem
and bioprinting of alginate as a bioink component. ACS cell expansion. Procedia CIRP, 110: 236–241.
Omega, 5: 6481–6486.
34. Fayyabakhsh F, Khayat MJ, Leu MC, 2022, 3D-printed
20. O’Connell CD, Onofrillo C, Duchi S, et al., 2019, Evaluation gelatin-alginate hydrogel dressings for burn wound healing:
of sterilisation methods for bio-ink components: Gelatin, A comprehensive study. Int J Bioprint, 8. 274–291.
gelatin methacryloyl, hyaluronic acid and hyaluronic acid 35. Reis DP, Domingues B, Fidalgo C, et al., 2022, Bioinks
methacryloyl. Biofabrication, 11: 035003.
enriched with ecm components obtained by supercritical
21. Chansoria P, Narayanan LK, Wood M, et al., 2020, Effects extraction. Biomolecules, 12: 394.
of autoclaving, etoh, and uv sterilization on the chemical, 36. Pössl A, Hartzke D, Schmidts TM, et al., 2021, A targeted
mechanical, printability, and biocompatibility characteristics rheological bioink development guideline and its systematic
of alginate. ACS Biomater Sci Eng, 6: 5191–5201.
correlation with printing behavior. Biofabrication, 13:
22. Rizwan M, Chan SW, Comeau PA, et al., 2020, Effect 035021.
of sterilization treatment on mechanical properties, 37. Calafel I, Aguirresarobe RH, Peñas MI, et al., 2020, Searching
biodegradation, bioactivity and printability of GelMA for rheological conditions for FFF 3D Printing with PVC
hydrogels. Biomed Mater, 15: 065017.
based flexible compounds. Materials, 13: 178.
23. Lafuente-Merchan M, Ruiz-Alonso S, Espona-Noguera A, et 38. Han CD, 1976, Rheology in Polymer Processing, Academic
al., 2021, Development, characterization and sterilisation of Press, New York.
Nanocellulose-alginate-(hyaluronic acid)- bioinks and 3D
bioprinted scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C, 39. Sanchez LC, Beatrice C AG, Lotti C, et al., 2019, Rheological
126: 112160. approach for an additive manufacturing printer based on
material extrusion. Int J Adv Manuf Technol, 105: 2403–
24. Pan T, Song W, Cao X, 2016, 3D bioplotting of gelatin/alginate 2414.
scaffolds for tissue engineering: influence of crosslinking
degree and pore architecture on physicochemical properties. 40. Bom S, Ribeiro R, Ribeiro HM, et al., 2022, On the progress
J Mater Sci Technol, 32: 889–900. of hydrogel-based 3D printing: Correlating rheological
properties with printing behaviour. Int J Pharm, 615: 121506.
25. Merk M, Chirikian O, Adlhart C, 2021, 3D PCL/gelatin/
genipin nanofiber sponge as scaffold for regenerative 41. Amorim PA, d’Ávila MA, Anand R, et al., 2021, Insights on
medicine. Materials, 14: 2006. shear rheology of inks for extrusion-based 3D bioprinting.
Bioprinting, 22: e00129.
26. Li H, Huang C, Jin X, et al., 2018, An electrospun poly(ε-
caprolactone) nanocomposite fibrous mat with a high 42. Naranda J, Bračič M, Vogrin M, et al., 2021, Recent
content of hydroxyapatite to promote cell infiltration RSC advancements in 3D printing of polysaccharide hydrogels in
Adv, 8: 25228–25235. cartilage tissue engineering. Materials, 14: 3977.
27. Choi DJ, Park SJ, Gu BK, et al., 2018, Effect of the pore size in 43. Dodero A, Vicini S, Alloisio M, et al., 2020, Rheological
a 3D bioprinted gelatin scaffold on fibroblast proliferation. J properties of sodium alginate solutions in the presence of
Ind Eng Chem, 67: 388–395. added salt: an application of Kulicke equation. Rheol Acta,
59: 365–374.
28. Xu J, Fang H, Su Y, et al., 2022, A 3D bioprinted decellularized
extracellular matrix/gelatin/quaternized chitosan scaffold 44. Lee SC, Gillispie G, Prim P, et al., 2020, Physical and
assembling with poly(ionic liquid)s for skin tissue chemical factors influencing the printability of hydrogel-
engineering. Int J Biol Macromol, 220: 1253–1266. based extrusion bioinks. Chem Rev, 120: 10834–10886.
29. Ren P, Wei D, Liang M, et al., 2022, Alginate/gelatin- 45. Habib MA, Khoda B, 2022, Rheological analysis of bio-ink
based hybrid hydrogels with function of injecting and for 3D bio-printing processes. J Manuf Process, 76: 708–718.
encapsulating cells in situ. Int J Biol Macromol, 212: 67–84. 46. Schwab A, Levato R, D’Este M, et al., 2020, Printability and
30. Wu Y, Lin Z Y (William), Wenger AC, et al., 2018, 3D shape fidelity of bioinks in 3D bioprinting. Chem Rev, 120:
bioprinting of liver-mimetic construct with alginate/ 11028–11055.
cellulose nanocrystal hybrid bioink. Bioprinting, 9: 1–6. 47. Chen H, Fei F, Li X, et al., 2021, A facile, versatile hydrogel
31. Russell CS, Mostafavi A, Quint JP, et al., 2020, In situ bioink for 3D bioprinting benefits long-term subaqueous
printing of adhesive hydrogel scaffolds for the treatment of fidelity, cell viability and proliferation. Regen Biomater, 8:
skeletal muscle injuries. ACS Appl Bio Mater, 3: 1568–1579. rbab026.

Volume 9 Issue 1 (2023) 318 https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.v9i1.645