Enhancing Bone Scaffold Fabrication: A Comparative Study of Manual Casting and Automated 3D Bioprinting
- PMID: 40473909
- DOI: 10.1007/s10439-025-03752-9
Enhancing Bone Scaffold Fabrication: A Comparative Study of Manual Casting and Automated 3D Bioprinting
Abstract
While fabrication of bone scaffolds is important for the development of tissue engineering, traditional techniques have typically been prone to either scaling or reproducibility issues. This paper highlights a strategy for automated 3D printing and bioprinting techniques that enhance precision and efficiency in the production of PLGA-HA scaffolds. We realized significant improvements in efficiency, reproducibility, and scalability through optimization of 3D printing parameters, improvement of material handling, and refinement of the fabrication process. Precise measurement consequently minimized material waste; the introduction of a mesh filter allowed for high-throughput experimentation without compromising the integrity of individual scaffolds, streamlining the workflow. Combining automated casting with state-of-the-art 3D bioprinting, our experimental methodology precisely applied the bioactive materials, reducing the processing time fivefold and enhancing precision. Besides, automated casting produced thicker, better-quality scaffolds averaging 0.02354 g, which is against 0.01169 g using the manual approach, effectively doubling the retention of the PLGA-HA coating on a PVA mold. Excellent cell viability and adhesion on automated scaffolds have been further underlined for application in tissue engineering during in vitro studies using multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. Although conventional techniques, such as injection molding, are standard for large lots, 3D printing has advantages in scaffold fabrication regarding control over geometry and homogeneous material properties. Equally important, these characteristics are necessary to achieve repeatable and up-scaled experimental results.
Keywords: 3D printing; Automation; Bioprinting; Bone regeneration; In vitro; Tissue engineering.
© 2025. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors have no competing financial or non-financial interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Similar articles
-
Advances in 3D printing technology for preparing bone tissue engineering scaffolds from biodegradable materials.Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024 Nov 14;12:1483547. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1483547. eCollection 2024. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024. PMID: 39610936 Free PMC article.
-
Three-dimensional (3D) printed scaffold and material selection for bone repair.Acta Biomater. 2019 Jan 15;84:16-33. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.11.039. Epub 2018 Nov 24. Acta Biomater. 2019. PMID: 30481607 Review.
-
3D Bioprinted Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering: State-Of-The-Art and Emerging Technologies.Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022 Apr 11;10:824156. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.824156. eCollection 2022. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022. PMID: 35480972 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Optimization of mechanical stiffness and cell density of 3D bioprinted cell-laden scaffolds improves extracellular matrix mineralization and cellular organization for bone tissue engineering.Acta Biomater. 2020 Sep 15;114:307-322. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.07.016. Epub 2020 Jul 13. Acta Biomater. 2020. PMID: 32673752
-
3D Bioprinting of a Bioactive Composite Scaffold for Cell Delivery in Periodontal Tissue Regeneration.Biomolecules. 2023 Jun 30;13(7):1062. doi: 10.3390/biom13071062. Biomolecules. 2023. PMID: 37509098 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Wu, A.-M., et al. Global, regional, and national burden of bone fractures in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2(9):e580–e592, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-7568(21)00172-0 . - DOI
-
- Juliebo, V., M. Krogseth, E. Skovlund, K. Engedal, and T. B. Wyller. Medical treatment predicts mortality after hip fracture. J. Gerontol. A. 65A(4):442–449, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glp199 . - DOI
-
- Nesnídal, P., J. Štulík, J. Štulík Ml, J. Kryl, T. Vyskočil, and M. Barna. Complications in Spine Surgery: prospective 13-year follow-up of unplanned revision spinal surgeries. Acta Chir. Orthop. Traumatol. Cech. 89(4):243–251, 2022. https://doi.org/10.55095/achot2022/040 . - DOI - PubMed
-
- Bahraminasab, M. Challenges on optimization of 3D-printed bone scaffolds. Biomed. Eng. OnLine. 19(1):69, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-020-00810-2 . - DOI - PubMed - PMC
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous