ReviewBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Optimising Bioprinting Nozzles through Computational Modelling and Design of Experiments.
Review in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine-Learning-Assisted Quantitative Printability Assessment in Extrusion-Based Bioprinting-A Systems-Engineering Proof-of-Concept.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Harnessing the Bio-Instructive Placental Extracellular Matrix: Structural Properties, Decellularization, and Applications in Regenerative Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Computational approaches in bioprinting processes.Nature reviews bioengineering · 2026Article
- Parameter Optimisation in 3D Extrusion Printing of Polyhydroxybutyrate Using Design of Experiment Methodology.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Ultra-Short Peptide Hydrogels as 3D Bioprinting Materials.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Task-specific computational fluid dynamics evaluation of multi-outlet extrusion nozzles for bioprinting.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- An Overview of 3D Bioprinting Impact on Cell Viability: From Damage Assessment to Protection Solutions.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Commercially available bioinks and state-of-the-art lab-made formulations for bone tissue engineering: A comprehensive review.Materials today. Bio · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
3D bioprinting is a promising technique for creating artificial tissues and organs. One of the main challenges of bioprinting is cell damage, due to high pressures and tensions. During the biofabrication process, extrusion bioprinting usually results in low cell viability, typically ranging from 40% to 80%, although better printing performance with higher cell viability can be achieved by optimising the experimental design and operating conditions, with nozzle geometry being a key factor. This article presents a review of studies that have used computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to optimise nozzle geometry. They show that the optimal ranges for diameter and length are 0.2 mm to 1 mm and 8 mm to 10 mm, respectively. In addition, it is recommended that the nozzle should have an internal angle of 20 to 30 degrees, an internal coating of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), and a shear stress of less than 10 kPa. In addition, a design of experiments technique to obtain an optimal 3D bioprinting configuration for a bioink is also presented. This experimental design would identify bioprinting conditions that minimise cell damage and improve the viability of the printed cells.
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.