ArticleJournal of biomedical materials research. Part A2025
How well do 3D-printed tissue mimics represent the complex mechanics of biological soft tissues? An example study with Stratasys' cardiovascular TissueMatrix materials.
Article in Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Volumetric Control vs. Pneumatic Pressure: A Comparative Analysis of Extrusion in 3D Bioprinting.Micromachines · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tissue mimicking materials are designed to represent real tissue in applications such as medical device testing and surgical training. Thanks to progress in 3D-printing technology, tissue mimics can now be easily cast into arbitrary geometries and manufactured with adjustable material properties to mimic a wide variety of tissue types. However, it is unclear how well 3D-printable mimics represent real tissues and their mechanics. The objective of this work is to fill this knowledge gap using the Stratasys Digital Anatomy 3D-Printer as an example. To this end, we created mimics of biological tissues we previously tested in our laboratory: blood clots, myocardium, and tricuspid valve leaflets. We printed each tissue mimic to have the identical geometry to its biological counterpart and tested the samples using identical protocols. In our evaluation, we focused on the stiffness of the tissues and their fracture toughness in the case of blood clots. We found that the mechanical behavior of the tissue mimics often differed substantially from the biological tissues they aim to represent. Qualitatively, tissue mimics failed to replicate the traditional strain-stiffening behavior of soft tissues. Quantitatively, tissue mimics were stiffer than their biological counterparts, especially at small strains, in some cases by orders of magnitude. In those materials in which we tested toughness, we found that tissue mimicking materials were also much tougher than their biological counterparts. Thus, our work highlights limitations of at least one 3D-printing technology in its ability to mimic the mechanical properties of biological tissues. Therefore, care should be taken when using this technology, especially where tissue mimicking materials are expected to represent soft tissue properties quantitatively. Whether other technologies fare better remains to be seen.
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.