Page 109 - IJB-9-2

International Journal of Bioprinting Holistic charge-based MEW scaffold model

Further, validation is needed to understand that the Ethics approval and consent to participate
effects of the residual charge are represented not only
by its correlation with the printing outcomes but also its Not applicable.
influence on the biological cell attachment. Accordingly, Consent for publication
the introduction of the positively charged functional
groups has been reported to improve cell attachment Not applicable.
outcomes [35] . However, it has been demonstrated that Availability of data
the residual charge in the context of this study can be
removed via the mechanisms of ambient air dissipation, Not applicable.
inverse corona discharge, and contact discharge [30] .
Specifically, the charge dissipation process can be References
completed under ambient air conditions. However, the 1. Daghrery A, de Souza Araújo IJ, Castilho M, et al., 2022,
question of whether and to what extent the residual Unveiling the potential of melt electrowriting in regenerative
charge will affect the cell attachment requires systematic dental medicine. Acta Biomater, 20.
investigation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2022.01.01
Acknowledgment 2. Li X, Liu B, Pei B, et al., 2020, Inkjet bioprinting of
biomaterials. Chem Rev, 120: 10793–10833.
None.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00008
Funding 3. Jiang T, Munguia-Lopez JG, Flores-Torres S, et al., 2019,

The research was funded by the National Science Extrusion bioprinting of soft materials: An emerging
technique for biological model fabrication. Appl Phys Rev,
Foundation under Award No. CMMI-MME-1663095 6: 011310.
and the U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity
under Award No. USAMRAA-W81XWH-19-1-0158. Any https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5059393
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations 4. Ng WL, Lee JM, Zhou M, et al., 2019, Vat polymerization-
expressed in this publication are those of the authors based bioprinting-process, materials, applications and
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National regulatory challenges. Biofabrication, 12: 022011.
Science Foundation or the U.S. Army Medical Research 5. Saidy NT, Wolf F, Bas O, et al., 2019, biologically inspired
Acquisition Activity. scaffolds for heart valve tissue engineering via melt
electrowriting. Small, 15: 1–15.
Conflict of interest
https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201900873
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
6. Boularaoui S, Al Hussein G, Khan KA, et al., 2020, An
Author contributions overview of extrusion-based bioprinting with a focus
on induced shear stress and its effect on cell viability.
Conceptualization: Kai Cao, Fucheng Zhang, Robert Bioprinting, 20: e00093.
C. Chang https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bprint.2020.e00093
Data curation: Kai Cao
Formal analysis: Kai Cao, Fucheng Zhang, Ahmadreza 7. Mobaraki M, Ghaffari M, Yazdanpanah A, et al., 2020,
Bioinks and bioprinting: A focused review. Bioprinting, 18:
Zaeri, Ralf Zgeib e00080.
Funding acquisition: Robert C. Chang
Investigation: Kai Cao https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bprint.2020.e00080
Methodology: Kai Cao, Fucheng Zhang 8. Roseti L, Parisi V, Petretta M, et al., 2017, Scaffolds for bone
Project administration: Robert C. Chang tissue engineering: State of the art and new perspectives.
Resources: Robert C. Chang Mater Sci Eng C, 78: 1246–1262.
Software: Kai Cao https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2017.05.017
Supervision: Robert C. Chang 9. Kade JC, Dalton PD, 2021, Polymers for melt electrowriting.
Validation: Kai Cao Adv Healthc Mater, 10: 202001232.
Visualization: Kai Cao
Writing – original draft: Kai Cao https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.202001232
Writing – review & editing: Fucheng Zhang, Ahmadreza 10. Ko J, Mohtaram NK, Ahmed F, et al., 2014, Fabrication of
Zaeri, Ralf Zgeib, Robert C. Chang poly (ε-caprolactone) microfiber scaffolds with varying

Volume 9 Issue 2 (2022) 101 https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.v9i2.656