ArticleScientific reports2025
Fabrication and validation of an affordable DIY coaxial 3D extrusion bioprinter.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in 3D Bioprinting for Scaffold-Based and Scaffold-Free Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- 3D bioprinting of microfluidic systems for cardiac regenerative medicine: from biofabrication to organ-on-a-chip.Journal of biological engineering · 2026Review
- 3D coaxial bioprinting of RADA16-I self-assembling peptide hydrogel.Materials today. Bio · 2026Article
- A Critical Review: Gel-Based Edible Inks for 3D Food Printing: Materials, Rheology-Geometry Mapping, and Control.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
3D bioprinting has emerged as a promising technology in tissue engineering, allowing for the precise fabrication of complex structures to mimic native tissues. Coaxial bioprinting enhances the complexity of printed structures by extruding multiple materials in concentric layers. However, costly commercial systems and a lack of Do-it-Yourself (DIY) guides for coaxial 3D bioprinting limit the wider adoption of this technology. This study presents a detailed description of modifying a commercial 3D printer to a coaxial 3D bioprinting system that simultaneously drives two syringe pump extruders connected to a coaxial nozzle. The system was validated using a soft alginate-gelatin hydrogel core and a load-bearing methylcellulose-based (MC) hydrogel shell. Shape fidelity of the 3D printed structures was evaluated for core-shell extrusion ratio, coaxial nozzle configuration, and in-situ crosslinking of the hydrogel core. Employing optimized printing settings allowed the fabrication of complex scaffold structures with a gradual transition between the extrusion of core and shell material. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) encapsulated in varying alginate concentrations were printed, maintaining shape fidelity and high cell viability. In conclusion, we developed a cost-effective DIY coaxial 3D bioprinter capable of extruding soft cell-laden hydrogels that are not printable by conventional extrusion bioprinting. This printer presents an easy to build and modify platform to encourage a wider audience to utilize and tailor coaxial bioprinting for their specific requirements.
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.