Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38988373›Full record

ArticleHardwareX2024

mSLAb - An open-source masked stereolithography (mSLA) bioprinter.

Benedikt K Kaufmann, Matthias Rudolph, Markus Pechtl, Geronimo Wildenburg, Oliver Hayden, Hauke Clausen-Schaumann, Stefanie Sudhop

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in HardwareX, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Benedikt K KaufmannCenter for Applied Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Munich University of Applied Sciences, 80335 Munich, Germany.
Matthias RudolphCenter for Applied Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Munich University of Applied Sciences, 80335 Munich, Germany.
Markus PechtlCenter for Applied Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Munich University of Applied Sciences, 80335 Munich, Germany.
Geronimo WildenburgCenter for Applied Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Munich University of Applied Sciences, 80335 Munich, Germany.
Oliver HaydenHeinz-Nixdorf-Chair of Biomedical Electronics, School of Computation, Information and Technology & Munich Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Technical University of Munich, TranslaTUM, Einsteinstraße 25, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Hauke Clausen-SchaumannCenter for Applied Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Munich University of Applied Sciences, 80335 Munich, Germany.
Stefanie SudhopCenter for Applied Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Munich University of Applied Sciences, 80335 Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

3D bioprinting is a tissue engineering approach using additive manufacturing to fabricate tissue equivalents for regenerative medicine or medical drug testing. For this purpose, biomaterials that provide the essential microenvironment to support the viability of cells integrated directly or seeded after printing are processed into three-dimensional (3D) structures. Compared to extrusion-based 3D printing, which is most commonly used in bioprinting, stereolithography (SLA) offers a higher printing resolution and faster processing speeds with a wide range of cell-friendly materials such as gelatin- or collagen-based hydrogels and SLA is, therefore, well suited to generate 3D tissue constructs. While there have been numerous publications of conversions and upgrades for extrusion-based printers, this is not the case for state-of-the-art SLA technology in bioprinting. The high cost of proprietary printers severely limits teaching and research in SLA bioprinting. With mSLAb, we present a low-cost and open-source high-resolution 3D bioprinter based on masked SLA (mSLA). mSLAb is based on an entry-level (€350) desktop mSLA printer (Phrozen Sonic Mini 4 K), equipped with temperature control and humidification of the printing chamber to enable the processing of cell-friendly hydrogels. Additionally, the build platform was redesigned for easy sample handling and microscopic analysis of the printed constructs. All modifications were done with off-the-shelf hardware and in-house designed 3D printed components, printed with the same printer that was being modified. We validated the system by printing macroscopic porous scaffolds as well as hollow channels from gelatin-based hydrogels as representative structures needed in tissue engineering.

Indexed as

BioprinterBioprintingHydrogelmSLAStereolithographyTissue Engineering

Identifiers

PMID38988373
PMCPMC11234000

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.