| Literature DB >> 34827591 |
Kelsey Willson1, Anthony Atala1, James J Yoo1.
Abstract
The development of appropriate bioinks is a complex task, dependent on the mechanical and biochemical requirements of the final construct and the type of printer used for fabrication. The two most common tissue printers are micro-extrusion and digital light projection printers. Here we briefly discuss the required characteristics of a bioink for each of these printing processes. However, physical printing is only a short window in the lifespan of a printed construct-the system must support and facilitate cellular development after it is printed. To that end, we provide a broad overview of some of the biological molecules currently used as bioinks. Each molecule has advantages for specific tissues/cells, and potential disadvantages are discussed, along with examples of their current use in the field. Notably, it is stressed that active researchers are trending towards the use of composite bioinks. Utilizing the strengths from multiple materials is highlighted as a key component of bioink development.Entities:
Keywords: 3D printing; bioink; bioprinting
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34827591 PMCID: PMC8615908 DOI: 10.3390/biom11111593
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomolecules ISSN: 2218-273X
Figure 1Diagrams showing the working mechanisms of micro-extrusion and DLP printers. (A) A micro-extrusion printer with examples of different extrusion nozzles and drivers (mechanical, pneumatic) along with the build platform [20]. (B) A DLP printer showing the orientations of the light source, curing plane, fabricated object, and build plate. Reprinted with the permission from Ref. [20]. Copyright 2018 AIP Publishing.
Figure 2Examples of biologically based bioinks. (A) An agarose alginate blend printed for cartilage development [17]. (B) Alginate extruded through a triaxial nozzle for blood vessel replacement [32]. (C) A large multilayered chitosan construct showing mechanical integrity of printed chitosan processed in an acidic environment [56]. (D) Collagen printed over a PCL scaffold (28 mm diameter) for use as a heart valve replacement [65]. (E) A combination of ECM and hyaluronic acid gel was seeded with liver spheroids [66]. (F) DLP printing of branched ECM [67]. (G) A multilayer fibrin skin construct [68]. (H) Examples of multilayer gelatin constructs developed for use with osteoblasts [69]. (I) Hyaluronic acid extruded with chondrocytes for cartilage engineering [70]. (J) Complex structures printed using a DLP printer and silk fibroin ink [71]. Reprinted with the permission from Ref. [17]. Copyright 2018 American Chemical Society; Reprinted with the permission from Ref. [32]. Copyright 2019 AIP Publishing; Reprinted with the permission from Ref. [56]. Copyright 2018 American Chemical Society; Reprinted with the permission from Ref. [65]. Copyright 1969 Elsevier; Reprinted with the permission from Ref. [66]. Copyright 2015 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd; Reprinted with the permission from Ref. [67]. Copyright 2018 Elsevier Ltd; Reprinted with the permission from Ref. [68]. Dr Yoo is an author on this paper and Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. publishers does not require authors of the content being used to obtain a license for their personal reuse of full article, charts/graphs/tables or text excerpt; Reprinted with the permission from Ref. [69]. Copyright 2020 American Chemical Society.; Reprinted with the permission from Ref. [70]. Copyright 2011 American Chemical Society; Reprinted with the permission from Ref. [71]. Copyright 2018 The Author(s).
Summary of bioinks presented here, with advantages and disadvantages for each bioink. All components are considered in their non-modified (natural) states.
| Bioink | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
|
| Tunable strength | Low rates of cellular proliferation |
| Tunable melting temperatures | Low cell adhesion/spreading | |
|
| Tunable strength through alteration of monomer percentages | Biologically inert |
| Rapid ionic crosslinking | Limited biodegradability | |
|
| Mucoadhesion | Poor solubility |
| Hemostatic activity | Poor shape fidelity post printing | |
| Interactions with cell membrane | ||
| Antimicrobial/analgesic effects | ||
| Controllable degradation | ||
|
| Enhanced cellular attachment/growth | Gelation at higher temperatures, liquid form at lower temperatures |
|
| Tissue specific | May be difficult to source |
| Multitude of growth factors/cell adhesion points | Difficult to characterize | |
| Batch to batch variability | ||
| Mechanically unstable | ||
|
| Enzymatic crosslinking | Rapid degradation profile |
| Non-linear elasticity: high deformation potential | Host source may result in immune reaction | |
| High cell adhesion/growth/development | Poor shape fidelity pre-crosslinking | |
| Natural degradation | Highly viscous post crosslinking | |
|
| Thermo-reversible gelation | Many crosslinking options are cytotoxic |
| High cell adhesion/growth/development | ||
| Can act as thickening agent/support material for other bioinks | ||
|
| High biocompatibility | Poor mechanical properties |
| Reproducible/tunable formation and degradation profiles | Slow gelation rate | |
| Rapid degradation profile | ||
|
| High cell density | Complicated manufacturing techniques |
| Rapid strand fusion | High cell density (sourcing/expanding) | |
| Self-assembly | Cannot be used with DLP systems | |
|
| Biocompatible | Hydrophobic |
| Adjustable degradation | Slow gelation rate | |
| Mechanically stable | ||
| Self-assembly | ||
|
| Immunologically inert | Poor mechanical properties |
| Stimulated cell migration/proliferation | ||
| Gelation at low concentrations |