ArticleApplied microbiology and biotechnology2026
Evaluation of sterilizable 3D-printed cell culture platforms using multiple FDM materials and their effects on cell behavior.
Article in Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Global supply chain instability has intensified the demand for alternative manufacturing methods in biomedical research. In the study, we developed an on-demand production method to produce cell culture vessels using consumer-grade fused deposition modeling (FDM) printers and biodegradable polymers. Through systematic optimization of printing parameters and development of a novel thermocompression post-printing technique, 0.1-mm-thick coverslips were fabricated, which eliminated interlayer defects and exhibited adequate optical clarity for microscopic observation. This study consolidated data from the evaluation of several FDM filaments, including polylactic acid (PLA), PXA, polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), and PHA/PLA blends. PHA and PHA/PLA blends were identified as being better suited for autoclave sterilization due to their inherent thermal stability, whereas PLA and PXA were largely or completely incapable of autoclave sterilization. From a cell culture perspective, PLA is susceptible to trypsin degradation during cell passaging, so its reuse should be restricted to a few passages. In contrast, PHA represents a more suitable material for cell culture. Among evaluated materials, PHA emerged as particularly promising due to its biocompatibility, showing neither stimulatory nor inhibitory effects on cell proliferation compared to other materials. The results established that properly processed 3D-printed coverslips or dishes can serve as fully functional alternatives to commercial cell culture products and resolve the inherent issue of poor microscopic imaging performance in 3D-printed dishes. KEY POINTS: PHA offers a superior alternative for environmentally-friendly materials. 3D printing coupled with TCPP enhances transparency and microscopic observability. Three-dimensional printing enables custom on-demand devices and boosts efficiency.
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.