Page 230 - IJB-9-4

International Journal of Bioprinting Simulation-based comparative analysis of nozzles for bioprinting

34. Jia J, Richards DJ, Pollard S, et al., 2014, Engineering alginate 45. Smith C, Oldt G, 2018, Multiaxial bio-printer head, viewed
as bioink for bioprinting. Acta Biomater, 10(10):4323–4331. January 23, 2023,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2014.06.034 https://5f6357c8-abe2-426e-bc22-b9f609a0b347.filesusr.
35. Ashammakhi N, Ahadian S, Xu C, et al., 2019, Bioinks com/ugd/e69967_73cde5aebac44f11b0432814832a2110.pdf
and bioprinting technologies to make heterogeneous and 46. Stewart B, 2017, 3D Bioprinting Hydrogel for Tissue
biomimetic tissue constructs. Mater Today Biol, 1:100008. Engineering an Ascending Aortic Scaffold, Thesis, Digital
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtbio.2019.100008 Commons @ DU, University of Denver.
36. Zhang S, Vijayavenkataraman S, Lu WF, et al., 2019, A 47. Liravi F, Darleux R, Toyserkani E, 2017, Additive
review on the use of computational methods to characterize, manufacturing of 3D structures with non-Newtonian highly
design, and optimize tissue engineering scaffolds, with a viscous fluids: Finite element modeling and experimental
potential in 3D printing fabrication. J Biomed Mater Res Part validation. Addit Manuf, 13:113–123.
B Appl Biomater, 107(5):1329–1351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2016.10.008
https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.34226
48. Billiet T, Gevaert E, De Schryver T, et al., 2014, The 3D
37. Göhl J, Markstedt K, Mark A, et al., 2018, Simulations of 3D printing of gelatin methacrylamide cell-laden tissue-
bioprinting: Predicting bioprintability of nanofibrillar inks. engineered constructs with high cell viability. Biomaterials,
Biofabrication, 10(3):034105. 35(1):49–62.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aac872 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.09.078
38. Blaeser A, Duarte-Campos DF, Puster U, et al., 2016, 49. Samanipour R, Wang Z, Ahmadi A, et al., 2016, Experimental
Controlling shear stress in 3D bioprinting is a key factor and computational study of microfluidic flow‐focusing
to balance printing resolution and stem cell integrity. Adv generation of gelatin methacrylate hydrogel droplets. J Appl
Healthc Mater, 5(3):326–333. Polym Sci, 133(29):43701.
https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201500677 https://doi.org/10.1002/app.43701
39. Liu W, Heinrich MA, Zhou Y, et al., 2017, Extrusion 50. Gómez-Blanco JC, Mancha-Sánchez E, Marcos AC, et al.,
bioprinting of shear‐thinning gelatin methacryloyl bioinks. 2020, Bioink temperature influence on shear stress, pressure
Adv Healthc Mater, 6(12):1601451. and velocity using computational simulation. Processes,
https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201601451 8(7):865.
40. Magalhães IP, Oliveira PMD, Dernowsek J, et al., 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8070865
Investigation of the effect of nozzle design on rheological
bioprinting properties using computational fluid dynamics. 51. Verma A, Vishnoi P, Sukhotskiy V, et al., 2018, Numerical
Matéria (Rio J.), 24(3):12401. simulation of extrusion additive manufacturing: Fused
deposition modelling, in TechConnect Briefs, 4, 118–121.
https://doi.org/10.1590/s1517-707620190003.0714
52. Serdeczny MP, Comminal R, Pedersen DB, et al., 2018,
41. Martanto W, Baisch SM, Costner EA, et al., 2005, Fluid Experimental validation of a numerical model for the strand
dynamics in conically tapered microneedles. AIChE J, shape in material extrusion additive manufacturing. Addit
51(6):1599–1607. Manuf, 24:145–153.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.10424 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.09.022
42. Reid JA, Mollica PA, Johnson GD, et al., 2016, Accessible 53. E3D-ONLINE JR, 2016, E3D V6 series blueprint, viewed
bioprinting: Adaptation of a low-cost 3D-printer for precise January 23, 2023,
cell placement and stem cell differentiation. Biofabrication,
8(2):025017. https://e3d-online.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/article_
attachments/4904924634141/V6-NOZZLE-ALL__6_.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/8/2/025017
54. JB, 2019, Cellink bioink biopritning protocol, viewed
43. Leppiniemi J, Lahtinen P, Paajanen A, et al., 2017,
3D-printable bioactivated nanocellulose–alginate hydrogels. January 23, 2023,
ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 9(26):21959–21970. https://www.cellink.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.7b02756 Bioprinting-Protocol-CELLINK-Bioink_2-Jan-2023-2.pdf
44. Nair K, Yan KC, Sun W, 2008, A computational modeling 55. Müller M, Öztürk E, Arlov Ø, et al., 2017, Alginate sulfate–
approach for the characterization of mechanical properties of 3D nanocellulose bioinks for cartilage bioprinting applications.
alginate tissue scaffolds. J Appl Biomater Biomech, 6(1):35–46. Ann Biomed Eng, 45(1):210–223.
https://doi.org/10.1177/228080000800600106 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-016-1704-5

Volume 9 Issue 4 (2023) 222 https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.730