Biofunctional rapid prototyping for tissue‐engineering applications: 3D bioplotting versus 3D printing

TLDR

The study compares 3D printing and 3D bioplotting for designing biodegradable polyurethane scaffolds suitable for tissue engineering. Scaffolds were fabricated from lysine‑based aliphatic polyurethanes and isophorone‑derived oligoetherurethanes using layer‑by‑layer 3D printing or 3D bioplotting, then characterized by micro‑CT, SEM, mechanical testing, and seeded with osteoblast‑like cells. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem 42: 624–638, 2004.

Abstract

Abstract Two important rapid‐prototyping technologies (3D Printing and 3D Bioplotting) were compared with respect to the computer‐aided design and free‐form fabrication of biodegradable polyurethane scaffolds meeting the demands of tissue‐engineering applications. Aliphatic polyurethanes were based on lysine ethyl ester diisocyanate and isophorone diisocyanate. Layer‐by‐layer construction of the scaffolds was performed by 3D Printing, that is, bonding together starch particles followed by infiltration and partial crosslinking of starch with lysine ethyl ester diisocyanate. Alternatively, the 3D Bioplotting process permitted three‐dimensional dispensing and reactive processing of oligoetherurethanes derived from isophorone diisocyanate, oligoethylene oxide, and glycerol. The scaffolds were characterized with X‐ray microtomography, scanning electron microscopy, and mechanical testing. Osteoblast‐like cells were seeded on such scaffolds to demonstrate their potential in tissue engineering. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem 42: 624–638, 2004