3D printing modality effect: Distinct printing outcomes dependent on selective laser sintering (SLS) and melt extrusion
Corresponding Author
Jeong Hun Park
Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Center for 3D Medical Fabrication, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Correspondence
Jeong Hun Park and Scott J. Hollister, Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, 313 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Email: [email protected] and [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorSarah Jo Tucker
Global Center for Medical Innovation, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJeong-Kee Yoon
Department of Systems Biotechnology, Chung-Ang University, Anseong-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
Search for more papers by this authorYongTae Kim
Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Parker H. Petit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience (IBB), Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Scott J. Hollister
Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Center for 3D Medical Fabrication, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Correspondence
Jeong Hun Park and Scott J. Hollister, Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, 313 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Email: [email protected] and [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Jeong Hun Park
Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Center for 3D Medical Fabrication, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Correspondence
Jeong Hun Park and Scott J. Hollister, Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, 313 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Email: [email protected] and [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorSarah Jo Tucker
Global Center for Medical Innovation, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJeong-Kee Yoon
Department of Systems Biotechnology, Chung-Ang University, Anseong-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
Search for more papers by this authorYongTae Kim
Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Parker H. Petit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience (IBB), Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Scott J. Hollister
Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Center for 3D Medical Fabrication, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Correspondence
Jeong Hun Park and Scott J. Hollister, Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, 313 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Email: [email protected] and [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
A direct and comprehensive comparative study on different 3D printing modalities was performed. We employed two representative 3D printing modalities, laser- and extrusion-based, which are currently used to produce patient-specific medical implants for clinical translation, to assess how these two different 3D printing modalities affect printing outcomes. The same solid and porous constructs were created from the same biomaterial, a blend of 96% poly-ε-caprolactone (PCL) and 4% hydroxyapatite (HA), using two different 3D printing modalities. Constructs were analyzed to assess their printing characteristics, including morphological, mechanical, and biological properties. We also performed an in vitro accelerated degradation study to compare their degradation behaviors. Despite the same input material, the 3D constructs created from different 3D printing modalities showed distinct differences in morphology, surface roughness and internal void fraction, which resulted in different mechanical properties and cell responses. In addition, the constructs exhibited different degradation rates depending on the 3D printing modalities. Given that each 3D printing modality has inherent characteristics that impact printing outcomes and ultimately implant performance, understanding the characteristics is crucial in selecting the 3D printing modality to create reliable biomedical implants.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
REFERENCES
- 1Han HH, Shim J-H, Lee H, et al. Reconstruction of complex maxillary defects using patient-specific 3D-printed biodegradable scaffolds. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018; 6(11).
- 2Zopf DA, Hollister SJ, Nelson ME, Ohye RG, Green GE. Bioresorbable airway splint created with a three-dimensional printer. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368(21): 2043-2045.
- 3Saito E, Liu Y, Migneco F, Hollister SJ. Strut size and surface area effects on long-term in vivo degradation in computer designed poly (L-lactic acid) three-dimensional porous scaffolds. Acta Biomater. 2012; 8(7): 2568-2577.
- 4Zhou M, Hou J, Zhang G, et al. Tuning the mechanics of 3D-printed scaffolds by crystal lattice-like structural design for breast tissue engineering. Biofabrication. 2019; 12(1):015023.
- 5Daly AC, Kelly DJ. Biofabrication of spatially organised tissues by directing the growth of cellular spheroids within 3D printed polymeric microchambers. Biomaterials. 2019; 197: 194-206.
- 6Shim J-H, Lee J-S, Kim JY, Cho D-W. Bioprinting of a mechanically enhanced three-dimensional dual cell-laden construct for osteochondral tissue engineering using a multi-head tissue/organ building system. J Micromech Microeng. 2012; 22(8):085014.
- 7Partee B, Hollister SJ, Das S. Selective laser sintering process optimization for layered manufacturing of CAPA® 6501 polycaprolactone bone tissue engineering scaffolds. J Manuf Sci Eng. 2006; 128: 531-540.
- 8Billiet T, Gevaert E, De Schryver T, Cornelissen M, Dubruel P. The 3D printing of gelatin methacrylamide cell-laden tissue-engineered constructs with high cell viability. Biomaterials. 2014; 35(1): 49-62.
- 9Kim H, Kang B, Cui X, et al. Light-activated decellularized extracellular matrix-based bioinks for volumetric tissue analogs at the centimeter scale. Adv Funct Mater. 2021; 31(32):2011252.
- 10Ding S, Zou B, Wang P, Ding H. Effects of nozzle temperature and building orientation on mechanical properties and microstructure of PEEK and PEI printed by 3D-FDM. Polym Test. 2019; 78:105948.
- 11Do AV, Khorsand B, Geary SM, Salem AK. 3D printing of scaffolds for tissue regeneration applications. Adv Healthc Mater. 2015; 4(12): 1742-1762.
- 12Kelly CN, Miller AT, Hollister SJ, Guldberg RE, Gall K. Design and structure–function characterization of 3D printed synthetic porous biomaterials for tissue engineering. Adv Healthc Mater. 2018; 7(7):1701095.
- 13Mota C, Puppi D, Chiellini F, Chiellini E. Additive manufacturing techniques for the production of tissue engineering constructs. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2015; 9(3): 174-190.
- 14Kang H-W, Lee SJ, Ko IK, Kengla C, Yoo JJ, Atala A. A 3D bioprinting system to produce human-scale tissue constructs with structural integrity. Nat Biotechnol. 2016; 34(3): 312-319.
- 15Lam CX, Teoh SH, Hutmacher DW. Comparison of the degradation of polycaprolactone and polycaprolactone–(β-tricalcium phosphate) scaffolds in alkaline medium. Polym Int. 2007; 56(6): 718-728.
- 16Coelho PG, Hollister SJ, Flanagan CL, Fernandes PR. Bioresorbable scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: optimal design, fabrication, mechanical testing and scale-size effects analysis. Med Eng Phys. 2015; 37(3): 287-296.
- 17Meng Z, He J, Li D. Additive manufacturing and large deformation responses of highly-porous polycaprolactone scaffolds with helical architectures for breast tissue engineering. Virtual Phys Prototyp. 2021; 16(3): 291-305.
- 18Shim J-H, Jang K-M, Hahn SK, et al. Three-dimensional bioprinting of multilayered constructs containing human mesenchymal stromal cells for osteochondral tissue regeneration in the rabbit knee joint. Biofabrication. 2016; 8(1):014102.
- 19Brazhkina O, Park JH, Park H-J, et al. Designing a 3D printing based auxetic cardiac patch with hiPSC-CMs for heart repair. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2021; 8(12): 172.
- 20Ha D-H, Chae S, Lee JY, et al. Therapeutic effect of decellularized extracellular matrix-based hydrogel for radiation esophagitis by 3D printed esophageal stent. Biomaterials. 2021; 266:120477.
- 21Ha D-H, Kim JY, Park TS, et al. Development of a radiopaque, long-term drug eluting bioresorbable stent for the femoral-iliac artery. RSC Adv. 2019; 9(59): 34636-34641.
- 22Park JH, Ahn M, Park SH, et al. 3D bioprinting of a trachea-mimetic cellular construct of a clinically relevant size. Biomaterials. 2021; 279:121246.
- 23Zopf DA, Flanagan CL, Wheeler M, Hollister SJ, Green GE. Treatment of severe porcine tracheomalacia with a 3-dimensionally printed, bioresorbable, external airway splint. JAMA Otolaryngol—Head Neck Surg. 2014; 140(1): 66-71.
- 24Pati F, Jang J, Ha D-H, et al. Printing three-dimensional tissue analogues with decellularized extracellular matrix bioink. Nat Commun. 2014; 5(1): 3935.
- 25Yan M, Awad H. Optimizing rheological properties for printability: low-temperature extrusion 3D printing of hydroxyapatite-polycaprolactone mixture inks for bone tissue engineering. Front Mater. 2023; 10:1239692.
- 26Jung JW, Lee J-S, Cho D-W. Computer-aided multiple-head 3D printing system for printing of heterogeneous organ/tissue constructs. Sci Rep. 2016; 6(1):21685.
- 27Lam CX, Savalani MM, Teoh S-H, Hutmacher DW. Dynamics of in vitro polymer degradation of polycaprolactone-based scaffolds: accelerated versus simulated physiological conditions. Biomed Mater. 2008; 3(3):034108.
- 28Yeo A, Sju E, Rai B, Teoh SH. Customizing the degradation and load-bearing profile of 3D polycaprolactone-tricalcium phosphate scaffolds under enzymatic and hydrolytic conditions. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater. 2008; 87(2): 562-569.
- 29Meng Z, He J, Cai Z, et al. In-situ re-melting and re-solidification treatment of selective laser sintered polycaprolactone lattice scaffolds for improved filament quality and mechanical properties. Biofabrication. 2020; 12(3):035012.
- 30Song P, Hu C, Pei X, et al. Dual modulation of crystallinity and macro−/microstructures of 3D printed porous titanium implants to enhance stability and osseointegration. J Mater Chem B. 2019; 7(17): 2865-2877.
- 31Andreu A, Kim S, Dittus J, Friedmann M, Fleischer J, Yoon Y-J. Hybrid material extrusion 3D printing to strengthen interlayer adhesion through hot rolling. Addit Manuf. 2022; 55:102773.
- 32Atwood JL. Comprehensive Supramolecular Chemistry II. Elsevier; 2017.
- 33Wang PY, Clements LR, Thissen H, Jane A, Tsai WB, Voelcker NH. Screening mesenchymal stem cell attachment and differentiation on porous silicon gradients. Adv Funct Mater. 2012; 22(16): 3414-3423.
- 34Du Y, Liu H, Yang Q, et al. Selective laser sintering scaffold with hierarchical architecture and gradient composition for osteochondral repair in rabbits. Biomaterials. 2017; 137: 37-48.
- 35Yeong W, Sudarmadji N, Yu H, et al. Porous polycaprolactone scaffold for cardiac tissue engineering fabricated by selective laser sintering. Acta Biomater. 2010; 6(6): 2028-2034.
