Page 163 - IJB-9-5

International Journal of Bioprinting Guide about the effects of sterilization on 3D-printed materials for medicine

Table 8. Mechanical properties of the 3D-printed Durable
Parameters Mechanical properties
Tensile strength (MPa) Young’s modulus (MPa) Elongation at yield (%) Elongation at break (%)
Control 18.46 ± 0.36 673 ± 37 15.39 ± 13.27 23.92 ± 0.60
HPO 17.83 ± 0.24 665 ± 54 16.27 ± 14.02 20.16 ± 7.47
AU121 17.67 ± 0.55 685 ± 65 15.98 ± 13.92 25.38 ± 2.86
AU134 15.73 ± 0.09 659 ± 36 20.83 ± 5.43 21.15 ± 5.37
Data are represented as mean ± SD. N = 3 Durable Control/group; N = 3 Durable HPO/group; N = 3 Durable AU121/group; N = 3 Durable AU134/group.

Figure 9. PA12 sterilization comparison. Data are represented as mean values. N = 3 PA12 Control/group; N = 3 PA12 HPO/group; N = 3 PA12 AU121/
group; N = 3 PA12 AU134/group.

3.1.4. VERO HPO sterilization imparted a very small effect on the tensile
Figure 6 shows the mechanics of the control sample and strength of this material, with a difference of 0.64% as
3D-printed VERO samples sterilized by HPO, AU121, and compared to the control group. The AU121 and the AU134
AU134. Both AU121 and AU134 slightly decreased the methods resulted in a tensile strength difference of 14%
mechanical properties of the tested VERO samples, which and 36.04%, respectively. Interestingly, tensile strength was
had a tensile strength of 29.16 ± 1.49 MPa and 30.26 ± 3.02 increased in the case of AU121 sterilization.
MPa respectively, as compared to the 31.32 ± 2.25 MPa of
control samples tested. The HPO method increased the 3.1.6. Durable
tensile strength by 15% (36.07 ± 4.73 MPa). There were no Figure 8 shows the mechanics of the control sample and
significant differences in tensile strength impact between 3D-printed Durable samples sterilized by HPO, AU121,
AU121 and AU134; however, AU134 showed a bigger and AU134. Table 8 shows different mechanical properties
impact. Table 6 shows different mechanical properties of of Durable material with different methods. It was found
VERO with different methods. that a higher temperature to which the sample is exposed
caused a bigger drop in the tensile strength. HPO resulted
3.1.5. Surgical Guide resin in a tensile strength difference of 3.53%, as compared to
Figure 7 shows the mechanics of the control sample and the tensile strength of control sample. The AU121 method
3D-printed Surgical Guide resin samples sterilized by HPO, resulted in a tensile strength difference of 4.47%, which is
AU121, and AU134. Table 7 shows different mechanical quite close to that of the HPO method. The impact of heat
properties of Surgical Guide resin with different methods. was noticed in AU134 method with a bigger difference in

Volume 9 Issue 5 (2023) 155 https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.756