Page 77 - MSAM-1-3

Materials Science in Additive Manufacturing 2D/3D visualization software for bioprinting

A B Investigation: Shaddin AlZaid, Noofa Hammad, Zainab N.
Khan
Methodology: Shaddin AlZaid, Hamed I. Albalawi
Software: Shaddin AlZaid
Visualization: Shaddin AlZaid, Hamed I. Albalawi
Writing – original draft: Shaddin AlZaid, Noofa Hammad,
Hamed I. Albalawi
C D Writing – review & editing: Shaddin AlZaid, Noofa
Hammad, Hamed I. Albalawi, Eter Othman, Charlotte
A. E. Hauser.
References

1. Kim Y, Nowzari H, Rich SK, 2013, Risk of prion disease
E F transmission through bovine-derived bone substitutes:
A systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 15:
645–653.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00407.x
2. Ashammakhi N, Kaarela O, 2018, Three-dimensional
bioprinting can help bone. The J Craniofac Surg, 29: 9–11.

Figure 6. (A-F) Marmalade reef preview and command details for specific https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004143
layers. 3. Tavafoghi M, Darabi MA, Mahmoodi M, et al., 2021,
Multimaterial bioprinting and combination of processing
4. Conclusion techniques towards the fabrication of biomimetic tissues
and organs. Biofabrication, 13: 42002.
The proposed “2D and 3D Model Visualization Software”
can visualize a G-code file by translating the commands https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ac0b9a
into 2D and 3D objects before operating the machine. In 4. Liu W, Zhang YS, Heinrich MA, et al., 2017, Bioprinting:
the future, other features will be added, such as converting Rapid continuous multimaterial extrusion bioprinting (Adv.
STL files into G-code, creating G-code shape paths, and Mater. 3/2017). Adv Mater (Weinheim), 29:1604630.
modifying the current files of G-code. Adding this tool to https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201770016
the TwinPrint System reduces the use of several applications 5. Ng WL, Lee JM, Zhou M, et al., 2020, Vat polymerization-
while printing, leading to a faster result that optimizes the based bioprinting process, materials, applications and
printing to be as time efficient as possible while maintaining regulatory challenges. Biofabrication, 12: 022001.
cost effectiveness. Moreover, the proposed method was
optimized and improved to achieve the intended goal with https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ab6034
the element of interactivity being added to the software. 6. Jiang T, Munguia-Lopez JG, Flores-Torres S, et al., 2019,
Extrusion bioprinting of soft materials: An emerging technique
Acknowledgments for biological model fabrication. Appl Phys Rev, 6: 011310.

The authors would like to acknowledge Ali Balubaid for his https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5059393
support.
7. Li X, Liu B, Pei B, et al., 2020, Inkjet bioprinting of
Funding biomaterials. Chem Rev, 120: 10793–10833.
The research reported in this publication was supported 8. Tekin E, Smith PJ, Schubert US, 2008, Inkjet printing as a
by funding from King Abdullah University of Science and deposition and patterning tool for polymers and inorganic
particles. Soft Matter, 4: 703–713.
Technology (KAUST).
9. Villar G, Graham AD, Bayley H, 2013, A tissue-like printed
Conflict of interest material. Science, 340: 48–52.
There are no conflicts to declare. 10. Xu T, Jin J, Gregory C, et al., 2005, Inkjet printing of viable
mammalian cells. Biomaterials, 26: 93–99.
Author contributions 11. Zhang LG, Leong K, Fisher JP, editors. 2022, 3D Bioprinting
Conceptualization: Zainab N. Khan, Shaddin AlZaid, and Nanotechnology in Tissue Engineering and Regenerative
Charlotte A. E. Hauser Medicine. Academic Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Volume 1 Issue 3 (2022) 6 https://doi.org/10.18063/msam.v1i3.19