ArticleEngineering in life sciences2017
Additive manufactured customizable labware for biotechnological purposes.
Article in Engineering in life sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of material selection method for cost-effective lab-scale 3D-printed platforms in biotechnology.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- 3D and 4D Bioprinting Technologies: A Game Changer for the Biomedical Sector?Annals of biomedical engineering · 2023Review
- Influence of Process Parameters on the Characteristics of Additively Manufactured Parts Made from Advanced Biopolymers.Polymers · 2023Review
- Development and Application of an Additively Manufactured Calcium Chloride Nebulizer for Alginate 3D-Bioprinting Purposes.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Yet already developed in the 1980s, the rise of 3D printing technology did not start until the beginning of this millennium as important patents expired, which opened the technology to a whole new group of potential users. One of the first who used this manufacturing tool in biotechnology was Lücking et al. in 2012, demonstrating potential uses 1, 2. This study shows applications of custom-built 3D-printed parts for biotechnological experiments. It gives an overview about the objects' computer-aided design (CAD) followed by its manufacturing process and basic studies on the used printing material in terms of biocompatibility and manageability. Using the stereolithographic (SLA) 3D-printing technology, a customizable shake flask lid was developed, which was successfully used to perform a bacterial fed-batch shake flask cultivation. The lid provides Luer connectors and tube adapters, allowing both sampling and feeding without interrupting the process. In addition, the digital blueprint the lid is based on, is designed for a modular use and can be modified to fit specific needs. All connectors can be changed and substituted in this CAD software-based file. Hence, the lid can be used for other applications, as well. The used printing material was tested for biocompatibility and showed no toxic effects neither on mammalian, nor on bacteria cells. Furthermore an SDS-PAGE-comb was drawn and printed and its usability evaluated to demonstrate the usefulness of 3D printing for everyday labware. The used manufacturing technique for the comb (multi jet printing, MJP) generates highly smooth surfaces, allowing this application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.