Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30065227›Full record

ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2018

Three-Dimensional (3D) Printed Microneedles for Microencapsulated Cell Extrusion.

Chantell Farias, Roman Lyman, Cecilia Hemingway, Huong Chau, Anne Mahacek, Evangelia Bouzos, Maryam Mobed-Miremadi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 3D printed microneedles: revamping transdermal drug delivery systems.Drug delivery and translational research · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Rising role of 3D-printing in delivery of therapeutics for infectious disease.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Microneedle arrays for the treatment of chronic wounds.Expert opinion on drug delivery · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Chantell FariasDepartment of Bioengineering, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053-0583, USA. cfarias@scu.edu.
Roman LymanDepartment of Bioengineering, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053-0583, USA. rlyman@scu.edu.
Cecilia HemingwayDepartment of Bioengineering, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053-0583, USA. chemingway@scu.edu.
Huong ChauDepartment of Bioengineering, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053-0583, USA. hchau@scu.edu.
Anne MahacekSCU Maker Lab, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053-0583, USA. amahacek@scu.edu.
Evangelia BouzosDepartment of Bioengineering, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053-0583, USA. ebouzos@scu.edu.
Maryam Mobed-MiremadiDepartment of Bioengineering, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053-0583, USA. mmobedmiremadi@scu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell-hydrogel based therapies offer great promise for wound healing. The specific aim of this study was to assess the viability of human hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG2) cells immobilized in atomized alginate capsules (3.5% (w/v) alginate, d = 225 µm ± 24.5 µm) post-extrusion through a three-dimensional (3D) printed methacrylate-based custom hollow microneedle assembly (circular array of 13 conical frusta) fabricated using stereolithography. With a jetting reliability of 80%, the solvent-sterilized device with a root mean square roughness of 158 nm at the extrusion nozzle tip (d = 325 μm) was operated at a flowrate of 12 mL/min. There was no significant difference between the viability of the sheared and control samples for extrusion times of 2 h (p = 0.14, α = 0.05) and 24 h (p = 0.5, α = 0.05) post-atomization. Factoring the increase in extrusion yield from 21.2% to 56.4% attributed to hydrogel bioerosion quantifiable by a loss in resilience from 5470 (J/m³) to 3250 (J/m³), there was no significant difference in percentage relative payload (p = 0.2628, α = 0.05) when extrusion occurred 24 h (12.2 ± 4.9%) when compared to 2 h (9.9 ± 2.8%) post-atomization. Results from this paper highlight the feasibility of encapsulated cell extrusion, specifically protection from shear, through a hollow microneedle assembly reported for the first time in literature.

Indexed as

3D printingalginatebiofabricationcell deliveryHepG2 cellshollow microneedlesmicroencapsulationstereolithographysustainabilitywound healing

Identifiers

PMID30065227
PMCPMC6164407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.