Evaluation of Rheological Properties and Cytotoxicity of Bioinks
- PDF / 1,078,733 Bytes
- 9 Pages / 432 x 648 pts Page_size
- 41 Downloads / 232 Views
MRS Advances © 2019 Materials Research Society DOI: 10.1557/adv.2019.40
Evaluation of Rheological Properties and Cytotoxicity of Bioinks Farzad Koosha1, Daniel Silverman2, Stephanie Taboada2, Juyi Li2, Miriam Rafailovich2,* 1
Department of Oral Biology and Pathology, School of Dental Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794
2
Department of Materials Science and Chemical, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Abstract We summarize the advantages and disadvantages of some of the most commonly used bioinks. We have probed the mechanical and cytotoxicity properties of Cellink and designed our own bioink from gelatin and Xanthan gum.
INTRODUCTION Recently there have been major improvements in three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies and it now allows for printing biomaterials, cells and biocompatible scaffolds [1,2]. These 3D bioprinting advancements provide great potential opportunities for printing organs and regenerating tissues [3,4]. Inkjet bioprinting has many advantages such as wide availability, low cost, high resolution, high printing speed, and it allows for introducing different concentration of additives to the bioink [5]. There are some downsides to this method as well that include thermal and mechanical stress to cells and limited printable materials that include mostly liquids and some gels [5,6]. Table 1 shows some of the bioinks that have been developed so far along with their disadvantages and advantages (see[7] for a general review). A variety of cell types printed using thermal, piezoelectric and electrostatic actuation mechanisms yield 80–95% cell viability and here we choose dental pulp stem cells for our cytotoxicity test [8].
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Iowa State University Library, on 26 Jan 2019 at 11:35:30, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1557/adv.2019.40
Bioink
Advantages
Disadvantages
References
Alginate sulfate/nanocellulose ink
Cell spreading was maintained with the lowest extrusion pressure and shear stress
The cell proliferation was compromised when extruded, especially when using small diameter nozzles
[11]
Agarose-based bioinks
Widely used because of its excellent gel formation properties
Ability to support cell growth is limited
[10]
Alginate-based bioinks
Biocompatible, various choices of crosslinking and bioprinting methods, low price, and ease of use for the creation of 3D structures
Highly hydrophilic, which cause minimal protein absorption hampering cell attachment
[12]
Collagen-based bioinks
Biocompatible and can be easily cross-linked using temperature or pH change
Long cross-linking time (30 minutes)
[10]
Hyaluronic acid (HA) based bioinks
Naturally biocompatible, long clinical history of HA use
Undesirable mechanical properties and slow gelation rate, HA needs to be chemically modified when used in bioinks
[10, 12]
Fibrin-based bioinks
Biocompatibility, bi
Data Loading...
