ArticlePolymers2020
A Versatile Open-Source Printhead for Low-Cost 3D Microextrusion-Based Bioprinting.
Article in Polymers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extrusion bioprinting: meeting the promise of human tissue biofabrication?Progress in biomedical engineering (Bristol, England) · 2025Review
- Improving Thermosensitive Bioink Scaffold Fabrication with a Temperature-Regulated Printhead in Robot-AssistedACS omega · 2024Article
- Development and implementation of a significantly low-cost 3D bioprinter using recycled scrap material.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Development and Application of Three-Dimensional Bioprinting Scaffold in the Repair of Spinal Cord Injury.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2022Review
- Improving Cell Viability and Velocity in μ-Extrusion Bioprinting with a Novel Pre-Incubator Bioprinter and a Standard FDM 3D Printing Nozzle.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Advances in Biofabrication for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Applications.Polymers · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting promises to be essential in tissue engineering for solving the rising demand for organs and tissues. Some bioprinters are commercially available, but their impact on the field of Tissue engineering (TE) is still limited due to their cost or difficulty to tune. Herein, we present a low-cost easy-to-build printhead for microextrusion-based bioprinting (MEBB) that can be installed in many desktop 3D printers to transform them into 3D bioprinters. We can extrude bioinks with precise control of print temperature between 2-60 °C. We validated the versatility of the printhead, by assembling it in three low-cost open-source desktop 3D printers. Multiple units of the printhead can also be easily put together in a single printer carriage for building a multi-material 3D bioprinter. Print resolution was evaluated by creating representative calibration models at different temperatures using natural hydrogels such as gelatin and alginate, and synthetic ones like poloxamer. Using one of the three modified low-cost 3D printers, we successfully printed cell-laden lattice constructs with cell viabilities higher than 90% after 24-h post printing. Controlling temperature and pressure according to the rheological properties of the bioinks was essential in achieving optimal printability and great cell viability. The cost per unit of our device, which can be used with syringes of different volume, is less expensive than any other commercially available product. These data demonstrate an affordable open-source printhead with the potential to become a reliable alternative to commercial bioprinters for any laboratory.
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.