Abstract
Biofabrication techniques including three-dimensional bioprinting could be used one day to fabricate living, patient-specific tissues and organs for use in regenerative medicine. Compared to traditional casting and molding methods, bioprinted structures can be much more complex, containing for example multiple materials and cell types in controlled spatial arrangement, engineered porosity, reinforcement structures and gradients in mechanical properties. With this complexity and increased function, however, comes the necessity to develop guidelines to standardize the bioprinting process, so printed grafts can safely enter the clinics. The bioink material must firstly fulfil requirements for biocompatibility and flow. Secondly, it is important to understand how process parameters affect the final mechanical properties of the printed graft. Using a gellan-alginate physically crosslinked bioink as an example, we show shear thinning and shear recovery properties which allow good printing resolution. Printed tensile specimens were used to systematically assess effect of line spacing, printing direction and crosslinking conditions. This standardized testing allowed direct comparison between this bioink and three commercially-available products. Bioprinting is a promising, yet complex fabrication method whose outcome is sensitive to a range of process parameters. This study provides the foundation for highly needed best practice guidelines for reproducible and safe bioprinted grafts.
Acknowledgments:
The work was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number CR32I3_146338/1) and FIFA/F-MARC. Authors would like to thank Prof. André Studart, Complex Materials, ETH Zurich for use of equipment.
Author’s statement
Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Materials and methods
Informed consent: Informed consent has been obtained from all individuals included in this study.
Ethical approval: The research related to human use has been complied with all the relevant national regulations, institutional policies and in accordance the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, and has been approved by the authors’ institutional review board or equivalent committee.
References
1. Chhaya PM, Poh SP, Balmayor RE, van Griensven M, Schantz J-T, Hutmacher WD. Additive manufacturing in biomedical sciences and the need for definitions and norms. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015;12:537–43.10.1586/17434440.2015.1059274Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Malda J, Visser J, Melchels PF, Jüngst T, Hennink EW, Dhert JW, et al. 25th anniversary article: engineering hydrogels for biofabrication. Adv Mat. 2013;25:5011–28.10.1002/adma.201302042Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Billiet T, Van Gasse B, Gevaert E, Cornelissen M, Martins CJ, Dubruel P. Quantitative contrasts in the photopolymerization of acrylamide and methacrylamide-functionalized gelatin hydrogel building blocks. Macromol Biosci. 2013;13:1531–45.10.1002/mabi.201300143Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Aguado B, Mulyasasmita W, Su J, Lampe K, Heilshorn S. Improving viability of stem cells during syringe needle flow through the design of hydrogel cell carriers. Tissue Eng Part A. 2012;18:806–15.10.1089/ten.tea.2011.0391Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
5. Billiet 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;35:49–62.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.09.078Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Khalil S, Sun W. Bioprinting endothelial cells with alginate for 3D tissue constructs. J Biomec Eng. 2009;131:1–8.10.1115/1.3128729Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Tirella AO, Vozzi G, Ahluwalia A. A phase diagram for microfabrication of geometrically controlled hydrogel scaffolds. Biofabrication. 2009;1:1–12.10.1088/1758-5082/1/4/045002Search in Google Scholar PubMed
8. Mazza E, Ehret EA. Mechanical biocompatibility of highly deformable biomedical materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mat. 2015;48:100–24.10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.03.023Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Bakarich S, Balding P, Gorkin R, Spinks GM, In het Panhuis, M. Printed ionic-covalent entanglement hydrogels from carrageenan and an epoxy amine. RSC Adv. 2014;4:38088–92.10.1039/C4RA07109CSearch in Google Scholar
10. Bakarich S, Gorkin R, In Het Panhuis M, Spinks GM. Three-dimensional printing fiber reinforced hydrogel composites. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2014;6:15998–6006.10.1021/am503878dSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Compton GB, Lewis AJ. 3D-Printing of lightweight cellular composites. Adv Mat. 2014;26:5930–5.10.1002/adma.201401804Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Cui J, Lackey M, Madkour EA, Saffer ME, Griffin MD, Bhatia RS, et al. Synthetically simple, highly resilient hydrogels. Biomacromol. 2012;13:584–588.10.1021/bm300015sSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
13. Hong S, Sycks D, Chan H, Lin S, Lopez PG, Guilak F, et al. 3D printing of highly stretchable and tough hydrogels into complex, cellularized structures. Adv Mat. 2015;27:4035–40.10.1002/adma.201501099Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
14. Kesti M, Eberhardt C, Pagliccia G, Kenkel D, Grande D, Boss A, et al. Bioprinting complex cartilaginous structures with clinically compliant biomaterials. Adv Func Mat. 2015;25:7406–17.10.1002/adfm.201503423Search in Google Scholar
15. McKee TC, Last AJ, Russell P, Murphy JC. Indentation versus tensile measurements of young’s modulus for soft biological tissues. Tissue Eng Part B. 2011;17:155–64.10.1089/ten.teb.2010.0520Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
16. Mueller J, Shea K, Daraio C. Mechanical properties of parts fabricated with inkjet 3D printing through efficient experimental design. Mater Des. 2015;86:902–12.10.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.129Search in Google Scholar
17. Wei J, Wang J, Su S, Wang S, Qiu J, Zhang Z, et al. 3D printing of an extremely tough hydrogel. Roy Soc Chem Adv. 2015;5:81324–9.10.1039/C5RA16362ESearch in Google Scholar
18. Hoch E, Schuh C, Hirth T, Tovar ME, Borchers K. Stiff gelatin hydrogels can be photo-chemically synthesized from low viscous gelatin solutions using molecularly functionalized gelatin with a high degree of methacrylation. J Mat Sci Mater Med. 2012;23:2607–17.10.1007/s10856-012-4731-2Search in Google Scholar PubMed
19. Schuurman W, Levett P, Pot WM, Van Weeren RP, Dhert AJ, Hutmacher WD, et al. Gelatin-methacrylamide hydrogels as potential biomaterials for fabrication of tissue-engineered cartilage constructs. Macromol Biosci. 2013;13:551–61.10.1002/mabi.201200471Search in Google Scholar PubMed
20. Rimann M, Bono E, Annaheim H, Bleisch M, Graf-Hausner U. Standardized 3D bioprinting of soft tissue models with human primary cells. J Lab Autom. 2015;1–14.10.1177/2211068214567146Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Markstedt K, Mantas A, Tournier I, Martinez Avila H, Hägg D, Gatenholm P. 3D bioprinting human chondrocytes with nanocellulose–alginate bioink for cartilage tissue engineering applications. Biomacromol. 2015;16:1489–96.10.1021/acs.biomac.5b00188Search in Google Scholar
22. Grasdalen H, Smidsrød O. Gelation of Gellan Gum. Carbohyd Polym. 1987;7:371–93.10.1016/0144-8617(87)90004-XSearch in Google Scholar
23. Mørch AY, Donati I, Strand LB, Skjak-Braek G. Effect of Ca2+, Ba2+, and Sr2+ on alginate microbeads. Biomacromol. 2006;7:1471–80.10.1021/bm060010dSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
24. Bryant JS, Nuttelman RC, Anseth SK. Cytocompatibility of UV and visible light photoinitiating systems on cultured NIH/3T3 fibroblasts in vitro. J Biomat Sci Polymer Edn. 2000;11:439–57.10.1163/156856200743805Search in Google Scholar PubMed
25. Williams GC, Malik NA, Kim KT, Manson NP, Elisseeff HJ. Variable cytocompatibility of six cell lines with photoinitiators used for polymerizing hydrogels and cell encapsulation. Biomat. 2005;26:1211–8.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.04.024Search in Google Scholar PubMed
26. Hopf R, Bernardi L, Menze J, Zündel M, Mazza E. Experimental and theoretical analyses of the age-dependent large-strain behavior of Sylgard 184 (10:1) silicone elastomer. J Mech Behavior Biomed Mat. 2016;60:425–437.10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.02.022Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Supplemental Material:
The online version of this article (DOI: 10.1515/bnm-2016-0004) offers supplementary material, available to authorized users.
©2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
