However, this technology only works if researchers and doctors have good bioinks on hand…and how do we know the materials are good? It’s expensive, difficult, and can take a long time to evaluate if these bioinks are 3D printable. That’s why many many researchers, like a team from the Wallenberg Wood Science Center (WWSC) in Sweden are starting to rely more and more on computer simulations to optimize these biomaterials.
Kajsa Markstedt, a PhD student of chemistry and chemical engineering and biopolymer technology at WWSC, and her colleagues recently partnered up with Johan Göhl’s Computational Engineering and Design team at the Fraunhofer Chalmers Centre (FCC) to test out a process for using a computational fluid dynamics tool to model the way bioinks are dispensed.
“As well as allowing us to evaluate the printability of a bioink, simulations could also help us choose the printing technique that should be employed depending on the target tissue. Such techniques vary depending on the viscosity and nature of the ink being printed, and include ink-jet printing, laser-induced forward transfer, microvalve- and extrusion-based bioprinting,” said Markstedt.
“To model how a bioink is dispensed, we used its mass flow rate and density as input in our calculations. These parameters are the ones most commonly evaluated in experiments when printing designs such as lines, grids or cylinders.”
The team published a paper, titled “Simulations of 3D bioprinting: predicting bioprintability of nanofibrillar inks,” in the Biofabrication journal; co-authors include Göhl, Markstedt, Andreas Mark, Karl Håkansson, Paul Gatenholm, and Fredrik Edelvik.
The abstract reads, “To fulfill the multiple requirements of a bioink, a wide range of materials and bioink composition are being developed and evaluated with regard to cell viability, mechanical performance and printability. It is essential that the printability and printing fidelity is not neglected since failure in printing the targeted architecture may be catastrophic for the survival of the cells and consequently the function of the printed tissue. However, experimental evaluation of bioinks printability is time-consuming and must be kept at a minimum, especially when 3D bioprinting with cells that are valuable and costly. This paper demonstrates how experimental evaluation could be complemented with computer based simulations to evaluate newly developed bioinks. Here, a computational fluid dynamics simulation tool was used to study the influence of different printing parameters and evaluate the predictability of the printing process. Based on data from oscillation frequency measurements of the evaluated bioinks, a full stress rheology model was used, where the viscoelastic behaviour of the material was captured.”
According to Markstedt, 3D printability of a bioink is most often determined by the ratio of line width to the diameter of a 3D printer’s nozzle, the curvature of 3D printed lines, and how many layers can be printed before structure collapse. The FCC scientists also used a dynamic contact-angle model, which uses surface tension and a contact angle as input, to the bioinks’ wettability on a substracte.
“In our simulations, we also used the printing path of a grid structure as input,” Markstedt said.
The full rheology model was based on the material’s viscoelastic behavior and the ink-oscillation frequency data obtained in the team’s experiments. For cellulose nanofibril (CNF) bioinks with different rheological properties, simulations produced outcomes that were similar to experimental results in lab evaluations. Additionally, the researchers could use the computer model the follow the real-time 3D printing process and study the behavior of various inks during dispensing.
Markstedt said, “In experimental evaluations, we often only have the properties of the final, printed grid structure to go on. This is a time-consuming way to develop new bioinks or to optimize printing parameters for a specific ink. It is also expensive since the prepared bioink containing cells is precious.”
It’s also important to test the biostructure soon after it’s 3D printed, because the cells are still viable at that point; this limits how long evaluations can last.
“This often leads to many bioinks being printed at printing parameters that have not been optimized for a specific bioink composition. The result is that the right architecture is not produced, which can be catastrophic because the printed tissue does not function properly,” said Markstedt. “For example, the printed line may be too thin causing the structure to break, or too thick, which prevents nutrients and oxygen reaching all the cells in the bioink.”
The researchers are fairly certain that their new simulation tool will be able to provide them with far more feedback during 3D printing, like how viscoelastic- and shear stresses are distributed in the ink, while still surmounting all of these issues.
Markstedt said, “This provides a better understanding of why certain printer settings and bioinks work better than others. For example, it allows us to isolate individual parameters, such as printing speed, printer nozzle height, ink flow rate and printing path to study how they influence printing.”
The team will now work on modeling bioink flow inside nozzle geometries that are pre-defined.
“This addition to the model will allow us to observe what effect shear stresses from the nozzle have on the printing process. This will help us to determine how different printing pressures and nozzle shapes affect the bioprintability of a bioink,” explained Göhl.
Discuss this story and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com, or share your thoughts below.[Source: Physics World / Images: Göhl et. al.]
You May Also Like
Thor3D & ProtoTech Solutions Combine 3D Scanning with Body Measuring Software
Germany and Russia-based handheld 3D scanner developer Thor3D, creator of such scanning systems as the Calibry and the (now discontinued) Drake, has been practicing its trade since 2015. Recently, the...
Maker of CREATOR Metal 3D Printer to Be Bought by Lumentum for $5.7B
There have been several important acquisitions in the 3D printing industry, including that of EnvisionTEC by Desktop Metal, Origin by Stratasys, and 3D Hubs by Proto Labs, leading us to...
Towards Zero Waste and Failures: AdditiveLab’s Customizable Simulation Enables Increase in Metal Additive Manufacturing Efficiency
AdditiveLab’s Mariam Mir will be speaking at 3DPrint.com’s upcoming AMS online industry summit (Feb 9-10, 2021). Register here. Metal additive manufacturing (AM) process simulation predicts the potential production outcome and gives vital...
Dream M&As: 3D Printing Mergers and Acquisitions We’d Like to See in 2021, Part 3
Inspired in part by the acquisition of EnvisionTEC by Desktop Metal, of 3D Hubs by ProtoLabs, and of Origin by Stratasys, we’ve been brainstorming about the newly hot 3D printing stocks and renewed interest...
View our broad assortment of in house and third party products.