ArticleMicromachines2026
Volumetric Control vs. Pneumatic Pressure: A Comparative Analysis of Extrusion in 3D Bioprinting.
Article in Micromachines, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Extrusion-based bioprinting faces significant challenges in achieving the shape fidelity and internal porosity necessary for cell viability, often hindered by subjective assessment methods. This study investigated the relationship between rheological properties and print quality using a natural polymer biomaterial ink composed of 12% gelatin, 5% alginate, and 1% carboxymethylcellulose. We conducted a comparative analysis between traditional pneumatic systems and screw-driven volumetric extrusion, utilizing a suite of quantitative metrics: Spreading Ratio (SR), Printability Index (Pr), Uniformity Ratio (UF), Collapse Angle (θ), and evaluated porosity. Our results demonstrate that the screw-driven system's positive displacement mechanism provides superior control over filament morphology by enabling precise volumetric modulation. While the pneumatic system exhibited a high SR of 1.82 and the lowest porosity at 59.92%, the screw-driven system allowed for "under-extrusion" to compensate for viscoelastic die swell. Reducing the flow rate to 50% in the screw system lowered the SR to 1.09, nearly matching the nozzle diameter, and increased porosity to 76.46%. Furthermore, the screw-driven system achieved an ideal Pr of 1.0, whereas the pneumatic system produced distorted, rounded pores with a Pr of 1.57. The findings indicate that screw-driven extruders can decouple line complex rheology from the printing process, allowing for finer spatial resolution and better pore interconnectivity.
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.