Page 34 - IJB-9-3

International Journal of Bioprinting

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Comparison of the potential for bioprinting of

different 3D printing technologies

Jesús M. Rodríguez-Rego *, Laura Mendoza-Cerezo , Antonio Macías-García ,
2
1
1
Alfonso C. Marcos-Romero , Juan P. Carrasco-Amador 1
1
1 Department of Graphic Expression, School of Industrial Engineering, University of Extremadura,
Badajoz 06006, Spain
2 Department of Mechanical, Energy and Materials Engineering, School of Industrial Engineering,
University of Extremadura, Badajoz 06006, Spain

Abstract

Additive manufacturing technologies offer a multitude of medical applications due
to the advances in the development of the materials used to reproduce customized
model products. The main problem with these technologies is obtaining the correct cell
viability values, and it is where three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting emerges as a very
interesting tool that should be studied extensively, as it has significant disadvantages
with respect to printability. In this work, the comparison of 3D bioprinting technology
in hydrogels and thermoplastics for the development of biomimetic parts is
proposed. To this end, the study of the printability of different materials widely used
in the literature is proposed, to subsequently test and analyze the parameters that
indicate whether these materials could be used to obtain a biomimetic structure
*Corresponding author: Jesús M. with structural guarantees. In order to analyze the materials studied, different tools
Rodríguez-Rego have been designed to facilitate the quantitative characterization of their printability
(jesusrodriguezrego@unex.es)
using 3D printing. For this purpose, different structures have been developed and a
Citation: Rodríguez-Rego JM, characterization methodology has been followed to quantify the printability value
Mendoza-Cerezo L, Macías-García A, of each material in each test to subsequently discard the materials that do not
et al., 2023, Comparison of the
potential for bioprinting of different obtain a minimum value in the result. After the study, it was found that only gelatin
3D printing technologies. Int J methacryloyl (GelMA) 5% could generate biomimetic structures faithful to the
Bioprint, 9(3): 680. designed 3D model. Furthermore, by comparing the printing results of the different
https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.680
materials used in 3D bioprinting and consequently establishing the approach of
Received: September 20, 2022 different strategies, it is shown that hydrogels need to be further developed to match
Accepted: October 27, 2022
Published Online: February 3, the results achieved by thermoplastic materials used for bioprinting.
2023
Copyright: © 2023 Author(s). Keywords: Printability, Bioprinting, 3D printing, Hydrogel, PCL, Matrigel.
This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution
License, permitting distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, 1. Introduction
provided the original work is
properly cited. Humans are in a constant race to push the boundaries of science and knowledge in order
Publisher’s Note: Whioce to obtain tools that enable them to overcome adversity more effectively. For this reason,
Publishing remains neutral with and due to a breakthrough in manufacturing technologies, three-dimensional (3D)
regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional printing has emerged. This printing is based on additive manufacturing technology,
[1]
affiliations. which makes it possible to create solid 3D objects from a digital model .

Volume 9 Issue 3 (2023) 26 https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.680