Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33253240›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

3D printing of bioreactors in tissue engineering: A generalised approach.

Marius Gensler, Anna Leikeim, Marc Möllmann, Miriam Komma, Susanne Heid, Claudia Müller, Aldo R Boccaccini, Sahar Salehi, Florian Groeber-Becker, Jan Hansmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. ReBiA-Robotic Enabled Biological Automation: 3D Epithelial Tissue Production.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Regenerative medicine clinical readiness.Regenerative medicine · 2021
    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

10 authors.

Marius GenslerDepartment Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5300-1053
Anna LeikeimDepartment Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Marc MöllmannTranslational Center Regenerative Therapies, Fraunhofer Institute for Silicate Research, Würzburg, Germany.
Miriam KommaDepartment Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Susanne HeidInstitute of Biomaterials, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Claudia MüllerDepartment Biomaterials, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany.
Aldo R BoccacciniInstitute of Biomaterials, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Sahar SalehiDepartment Biomaterials, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany.
Florian Groeber-BeckerDepartment Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Jan HansmannDepartment Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

3D printing is a rapidly evolving field for biological (bioprinting) and non-biological applications. Due to a high degree of freedom for geometrical parameters in 3D printing, prototype printing of bioreactors is a promising approach in the field of Tissue Engineering. The variety of printers, materials, printing parameters and device settings is difficult to overview both for beginners as well as for most professionals. In order to address this problem, we designed a guidance including test bodies to elucidate the real printing performance for a given printer system. Therefore, performance parameters such as accuracy or mechanical stability of the test bodies are systematically analysed. Moreover, post processing steps such as sterilisation or cleaning are considered in the test procedure. The guidance presented here is also applicable to optimise the printer settings for a given printer device. As proof of concept, we compared fused filament fabrication, stereolithography and selective laser sintering as the three most used printing methods. We determined fused filament fabrication printing as the most economical solution, while stereolithography is most accurate and features the highest surface quality. Finally, we tested the applicability of our guidance by identifying a printer solution to manufacture a complex bioreactor for a perfused tissue construct. Due to its design, the manufacture via subtractive mechanical methods would be 21-fold more expensive than additive manufacturing and therefore, would result in three times the number of parts to be assembled subsequently. Using this bioreactor we showed a successful 14-day-culture of a biofabricated collagen-based tissue construct containing human dermal fibroblasts as the stromal part and a perfusable central channel with human microvascular endothelial cells. Our study indicates how the full potential of biofabrication can be exploited, as most printed tissues exhibit individual shapes and require storage under physiological conditions, after the bioprinting process.

Indexed as

Biobehavioral SciencesBioreactorsEndothelial CellsFibroblastsPrinting, Three-DimensionalTissue EngineeringCell Culture TechniquesCells, CulturedHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID33253240
PMCPMC7703892

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.