Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5881_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Aim and Scope
- •Preface
- •Acknowledgments
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •About the Editors
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2.1 Friction
- •1.2.1.3 Friction Under Lubricated Conditions
- •1.7.1 Joint Tribology
- •1.7.2 Skin Tribology
- •1.7.3 Oral Tribology
- •1.8 Summary
- •References
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.3.1 Fluid Pressurization/Fluid-Film Lubrication
- •2.3.2 Boundary Lubrication
- •2.3.3 Hydrodynamic Lubrication
- •2.3.4 Squeeze-Film Lubrication
- •2.3.5 Synovial Fluid
- •2.3.6 Hydration Lubrication
- •2.5.2 Scaffolds
- •2.5.3 Synthetic Polymer
- •2.5.4 Polyacrylamide
- •2.5.5 PEG Hydrogel
- •2.5.6 PVA Hydrogel
- •2.5.7 Double Network Hydrogel
- •2.5.8 Triple Network Hydrogel
- •2.6.1 Polyacrylamide
- •2.6.2 PEG Hydrogel
- •2.6.3 PVA Hydrogel
- •2.6.4 Double Network Hydrogel
- •2.6.5 Triple Network Hydrogel
- •2.7.1 Mechanical Properties
- •2.7.2 Structural Properties
- •2.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.3.1 Label-Based Biosensors
- •3.3.2 Label-Free Biosensors
- •3.4 Different Nanobiosensing Techniques
- •3.4.1 Optical Sensing
- •3.4.2 Electrochemical/Electrical Sensing
- •3.4.3 Magnetic Sensing
- •3.4.4 Mass-Based Sensing
- •3.6.2 Neurodegenerative Diseases
- •3.6.3 Infectious Diseases
- •3.6.4 Metabolic Diseases
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2.1 Surface Functionalization
- •4.2.2 Bioconjugation
- •4.3 Synthesis Approach
- •4.3.1 Hydrothermal Method
- •4.3.2 Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD)
- •4.3.3 Wet Chemical Method
- •4.4 Plasmonic Black Bodies (PBBs)
- •4.4.1 Gold NP (AuNPs)-Based PBB
- •4.4.2 Silver NPs (Ag NPs)-Based PBB
- •4.4.3 Platinum NPs (Pt NPs)-Based PBB
- •4.5 Biomimetic NP
- •4.6 Upconverting NP (UCNP)
- •4.6.1 Synthesis
- •4.7 Inorganic NP
- •4.7.1 Synthesis
- •4.8 Photothermal Therapy (PTT)
- •4.9 Conclusion
- •References
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2 Human Skin
- •5.10 Future Scope
- •5.11 Conclusion
- •References
- •6.1 Introduction
- •6.1.1 Class 1
- •6.1.2 Class 2
- •6.1.3 Class 3
- •6.4.1.1 Surface Patterning
- •6.4.1.2 Direct-Write Patterning
- •6.4.1.5 Dip-Pen Nanotechnology
- •6.4.1.7 Composing Using Beams
- •6.4.1.8 Direct Write Photolithography (DWP)
- •6.4.1.9 Light-Beam Lithography Electron
- •6.4.1.10 Focused Ion Beam Lithography
- •6.4.2 Fabrication Techniques
- •6.4.2.4 Non-invasive Glucose Monitoring Devices Technique
- •6.4.2.6 Cost-Effective Electrochemical Voltametric Sensors Techniques
- •6.4.2.7 Three-Dimensional (3D) Printing Techniques
- •6.4.2.8 UV-LED Stereolithography Printer Technique
- •6.4.2.9 4D Printing Techniques
- •6.4.2.10 Advanced Biomedical Techniques Involving Biorobots
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.6 Mechanical Biocompatibility Challenges
- •7.7 Poor Bio-Printing Resolution
- •7.9 Limited Biomaterial Selection
- •7.11 Conclusion
- •8.2 Animal Tribology
- •8.2.1 Joint
- •8.2.3 Integumentary Change
- •References
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.3.1 Nanotribology
- •8.4 Green Tribology
- •8.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2 Bio-Tribological Issues
- •9.3.2 Bone Fracture Fixation
- •9.3.4 Cardiovascular Devices
- •9.3.5 Minimal Invasive Surgical Devices
- •References
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.2.2.1 Structural Integrity
- •10.2.2.2 Controlled Release Properties
- •10.2.2.3 Enhanced Drug Loading Capacity
- •10.2.2.4 Tailored Material Properties
- •10.2.3.1 Biocompatibility
- •10.2.3.3 Mechanical Properties
- •10.2.3.4 Drug Compatibility
- •10.2.3.5 Fabrication Compatibility
- •10.3.1 Matrix Material Properties
- •10.3.4 Biocompatibility Assessment
- •10.3.4.1 In Vitro Cell Culture Studies
- •10.3.4.2 Hemocompatibility Studies
- •10.3.4.3 In Vivo Animal Studies
- •10.3.4.4 Histological Analysis
- •10.3.4.5 Immune Response Evaluation
- •10.3.4.6 Biodegradation Assessment
- •10.4 Surface Engineering Considerations
- •10.4.2.1 Surface Coatings
- •10.4.2.2 Plasma Treatment
- •10.4.2.3 Surface Grafting
- •10.4.2.4 Dip Coating
- •10.4.2.5 Spray Coating System
- •10.4.2.6 Electrotreated Coating
- •10.4.2.9 Microfabrication Techniques
- •10.4.2.10 Surface Roughness Control
- •10.5.1.2 Mechanical Properties
- •10.5.1.3 Surface Characteristics
- •10.5.1.4 Release Kinetics Analysis
- •10.5.1.5 Biological Compatibility
- •10.5.1.7 Other Analyses
- •10.6 Advanced Fabrication Techniques
- •10.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 Shape Memory Alloys (SMA)
- •11.3 Shape Memory Polymers
- •11.3.1 Heat
- •11.3.2 Light
- •11.3.3 Magnetic Field
- •11.4 Shape-Changing Hydrogels
- •11.5 Biomedical Applications
- •11.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.3 Bioresorbable Orthopedic Implants
- •12.4.1 Polylactides
- •12.4.2 Poly (Ortho Esters)
- •12.4.3 Polyphosphoesters
- •12.4.4 Polyphosphazenes
- •12.4.5 Polycaprolactone
- •12.4.6 Polyurethanes
- •12.4.7 Polycarbonates
- •12.5.1 Compression Molding
- •12.5.2 Transfer Molding
- •12.5.3 Injection Molding
- •12.5.4 Extrusion
- •12.5.5 Blow Molding
- •12.5.6 Calendering Process
- •12.5.7 Fiber Spinning
- •12.5.8 Thermoforming
- •12.5.9 Polymer Foaming
- •12.7 Challenges
- •12.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •13.1 Introduction
- •13.3.1.1 Total Hip Replacement (THR)
- •13.3.2 Resurfacing Hip Replacement (RHR)
- •13.5.1 Adhesive Wear
- •13.5.2 Abrasive Wear
- •13.5.3 Fatigue Wear
- •13.5.4 Corrosion/Oxidative Wear
- •13.5.5 Surface Cracking
- •13.6.1 Metallic Implants
- •13.6.1.1 Stainless Steel
- •13.6.1.2 Co-Cr Alloys
- •13.6.1.3 Ti-Alloy
- •13.6.2 Ceramic Implants
- •13.6.3 Polymer Implants
- •13.6.4 Composite Implants
- •13.6.5.2 Surface Coatings
- •13.7.2.1 Hydrodynamic Lubrication
- •13.7.2.2 Boundary Lubrication
- •13.7.2.3 Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication
- •13.7.3 Biomimetic Lubrication Approaches
- •13.7.3.1 Replicating Natural Lubrication Mechanisms
- •13.7.4.1 Implant Wear
- •13.7.4.3 Synovial Fluid Degradation
- •13.8.1 Hydroxyapatite Coatings
- •13.8.1.1 Bone Integration
- •13.8.1.2 Implant Stability
- •13.8.1.4 Biocompatibility
- •13.8.2 Diamond-Like Carbon Coatings
- •13.8.3 Metal Nitride Coatings
- •13.8.4 Polymeric Coatings
- •13.8.5 Nanocomposite Coatings
- •13.9.1 Pin-on-Disk Testing
- •13.9.2 Hip Joint Simulators
- •13.9.3 Knee Joint Simulators
- •13.9.4 Tribo-Corrosion Testing
- •13.9.5 Wear Debris Analysis Techniques
- •13.9.5.1 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
- •13.9.5.2 Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy (EDS)
- •13.10.1.1 Tailored Geometries
- •13.10.1.2 Improved Wear Characteristics
- •13.10.1.3 Accelerated Innovation
- •13.10.2.1 Real-Time Wear Monitoring
- •13.10.2.2 Functionality Assessment
- •13.10.2.3 Implant Status Monitoring
- •13.10.2.4 Patient-Centric Healthcare
- •13.10.3.1 Advanced Biomaterials
- •13.10.3.4 Multidisciplinary Approaches
- •13.10.4.1 Wear Data Analysis
- •13.10.4.2 Predictive Wear Patterns
- •13.10.4.3 Early Intervention Strategies
- •13.10.4.4 Personalized Treatment Plans
- •13.11 Conclusion
- •References
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.2.1 Powder Bed Fusion (PBF)
- •14.2.2 Directed Energy Deposition
- •14.3.1 Extrusion-Based AM
- •14.5 Biomanufacturing
- •14.5.1 Tissue Engineering
- •14.5.2 Organ-on-a-Chip Models
- •14.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Index

14 Challenges andPerspective ofManufacturing Techniques inBiomedical Applications
The two most widely used AM techniques for metals are: drop-on-powder deposition methods, such as selective laser melting/sintering (SLM/SLS), electron beam
melting (EBM) and continuous deposition methods, like fused deposition modeling
(FDM). AM makes it convenient by offering near-net shape components, reducing
post-processing steps and minimal wastage of material.
Usually, most metallic implants undergo multiple post-processing processes,
such as cleaning, coating, thin lm deposition, heat treatment, and surface treatments, to achieve increased mechanical properties and/or biocompatibility [16].
437
14.2.1 Powder Bed Fusion (PBF)
PBF encompasses laser- and electron-beam-based techniques for building 3D metal
parts by selectively melting ne powders, following a digital blueprint, layer by
layer [17]. While ber lasers with powers up to 1kW are common, the process typically involves spreading a fresh layer of powder (15–150μm) onto the platform,
melting it with the laser beam, and lowering the platform for the next layer [18].
This method boasts notable advantages like superior grain renement, enhanced
chemical homogeneity, and reduced phase segregation. However, challenges lie in
controlling melt pool stability to avoid unpredictable microstructures [19].
Manufacturers can achieve controlled microstructures and produce high-quality
medical devices with optimal performance by ne-tuning process parameters like
spacing, laser power, and scan speed [18].
14.2.2 Directed Energy Deposition
Laser Metal Deposition (LMD) is a versatile additive manufacturing (AM) technique that injects ne metal powder into a focused laser beam, melting it into a
small pool on the target surface. Complex geometries can be built layer-by-layer by
moving the workpiece under the beam, creating entirely new parts, adding structures to existing ones, or even repairing damaged components. While powder ow,
speed, and laser power signicantly inuence the nal properties like deposition
height, width, surface nish, and mechanics, LMD’s true strength lies in its ability
to build intricate objects having graded composition or porosity, even using diverse
biomaterials like shape memory alloys, stainless steel, and titanium [20]. Despite
the challenge of maintaining consistent layer thickness (typically 0.3–1 mm),
LMD’s potential to create customized, high-performance parts from various materials makes it a powerful tool in diverse elds.

438
Y. O. Waidi et al.
14.2.3 Design ofMetallic Biomaterials
AM technologies are revolutionizing biomedical implant production by enabling
the creation of graded and porous surface constructs with precisely designed unit
cells. This innovation’s appeal lies in its capacity to enhance osseointegration and
cell proliferation while tailoring mechanical properties like elastic modulus and
compressive strength to match native bone, thereby preventing stress-shielding
issues after implantation. To effectively mirror the mechanical properties and
dynamic characteristics of cortical and trabecular bone (which differ in organic/
inorganic material proportions and porosity) within a single implant, precise pore
size and distribution design are crucial. Additionally, the organization and integration of these bone types are highly dependent on both the skeletal region and the
specic mechanical loading experienced.
Although porous titanium implants offer exciting possibilities for patient- tailored
biomedical applications, research reveals that pore size, volume, and pore shape
signicantly impact cell behavior. Studies categorize cellular structures into random
“stochastic” structures and ordered “nonstochastic” lattices. Notably, nonstochastic
geometries hold signicant advantages with their well-dened pore shapes and
sizes. Such predictable designs boast superior mechanical properties and facilitate
cleaner removal of leftover powder during fabrication via powder bed technologies,
a clear advantage over their stochastic counterparts like metal foams. Controlling
pore shape within a dened geometric framework unlocks improved cell responses
and optimized manufacturing processes, paving the way for even more effective
personalized implants.
A study investigated the impact of nonstochastic pore architecture in SLMproduced Ti-6Al-4V scaffolds on various aspects, including mechanical properties,
cell attachment, and in vitro biological outcomes [21]. Interestingly, pore shape
signicantly inuenced cell permeability, thereby affecting cell attachment, with
circular pores promoting the highest attachment despite being independent of pore
size. This phenomenon was attributed to differences in pore occlusion, with hexagonal pores exhibiting greater blockage than triangular or rectangular ones.
Researchers successfully utilized nite element analysis (FEA) to design and
fabricate titanium hip implants via electron beam melting (EBM), minimizing stress
shielding on the surrounding bone while maintaining the implant’s strength [22].
They achieved this by replacing solid stems with customized periodic lattice structures, demonstrating the feasibility of constructing nonstochastic lattices with
EBM. However, they emphasized the importance of controlling strut orientation
during fabrication to match the simulated model. Discrepancies between the smooth,
constant-section struts in the FEA model and the textured, slightly varying struts in
the actual implants necessitated the use of safety factors in the design. Despite these
challenges, their study concluded that the Ti-6Al-4V stem with a mesh lattice
achieved the optimal stress distribution in the femur’s proximal region among the
tested congurations, offering a promising avenue for future implant design.

14 Challenges andPerspective ofManufacturing Techniques inBiomedical Applications
439
14.3 Manufacturing ofPolymeric andComposite Materials
The advancements in polymer technology for additive manufacturing are signicantly impacting materials science and technology. The creation of this polymerbased equipment can be utilized in for human tissue failure problems. AM library of
polymeric materials has grown over time to maximize its uses in the biomedical
eld. The production of biocompatible polymers for SLA has advanced signicantly, potentially replacing traditional lithographic acrylic resins that may have
harmful effects. Conversely, the results of the in vivo placement of polymeric
devices produced using fused deposition modeling (FDM) or surface laser sintering
(SLS) encouraged further research toward their permanent integration into standard
interventional surgery procedures. The polymer components obtained naturally
have certain innate bioactive and biomimetic qualities to create production methods
that are more environmentally sustainable. Moreover, solution-based AM is the preferred method for functionalizing materials with bioactive substances. This is seen
in the case of hydrogels with regulated porosity and an exterior form that encapsulates growth factors or cells, and in the polymeric matrix, they are endowed with
nano- or microporosity. Additionally, much work has gone into creating composite
implants to improve mechanical characteristics and bioactivity [38–45]. AM is also
used in bone implant device fabrication. Generally, bioresorbable polymers have
many advantages over metallic implants [46–56].
14.3.1 Extrusion-Based AM
The material extrusion (ME) process selectively dispenses the contents from a nozzle tip across a moveable stage. A polymer composition that can bind together at a
temperature (without degradation) can potentially be utilized in ME.A steady nozzle speed and pressure would result in a constant cross-sectional diameter for the
material deposited. When a layer is nished, the printhead advances by a stepsize
(usually by 100–300μm) to allow for the creation of the subsequent layer on top of
the old one. Typical extrusion-based phases are as follows: [1]: (1–2) lling of the
polymer components; (3) applying pressure to push the printing components; (4)
extrusion; (5) deposition of layers on a predened CAD model; (6) joining of the
component parts to create a cohesive, solid framework [23]. FDM possesses a number of benets, such as the elimination of the need for post-processing steps, as well
as the inexpensive nature of supplies, which makes the process economical, fast,
user-friendly, and broadly accessible [24].
Nevertheless, there are drawbacks associated with it, such as reduced resolution,
low printing speed, and anisotropy of the printed structures. Additionally, FDM has
certain restrictions regarding the geometric complexity and compatibility with
materials [24]. The volumetric ow rate, material viscosity, feed deposition, and
heat transfer are experimental parameters that determine the printed part’s accuracy.

440
Y. O. Waidi et al.
The newly extruded lament could expand after extrusion and must be combined
with the existing structures. Lastly, the cooling effects will probably cause the
printed object to deform during or after printing.
The most often utilized polymers are amorphous thermoplastics, such as acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and polylactic acid (PLA). PLA, a plastic made
from cornstarch, has a comparatively low melting point (between 150 and 160°C)
and requires limited energy consumption compared to other substances. Moreover,
ABS can be made by mechanically mixing styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer with
butadiene or by grafting styrene and acrylonitrile onto polybutadiene at temperatures ranging from 176 to 260°C [25]. This makes it incredibly adaptable, allowing
it to be adapted to various purposes.
14.3.2 Stereolithography andDLP (Digital Light Processing)
Vat photopolymerization is a particular kind of additive manufacturing (AM) where
a liquid, the photopolymer, is selectively and spatially restored in a vat by lightactivated crosslinking. Chuck Hull pioneered using UV-curable materials in the
mid-1980s, creating solid polymer patterns with a scanning laser. Intriguingly, he
found that layer-by-layer curing could produce solid 3D components. In 1983, Hull
co-founded 3D Systems Inc., securing a patent for the rst stereolithography (SLA)
machine for commercial use, with the SLA-1 model hitting the market in 1987. This
group includes several AM lithography methods, such as digital light processing
(DLP), multiphoton polymerization (2PP), and SLA [26].
Using coherent light sources, the SLA technology causes a liquid resin to polymerize and crosslink, typically UV-emitting lasers. The technique’s benets include
great spatial resolution due to the concentrated laser beam’s spot size. SLA relies on
a photopolymerization process, converting a liquid monomer/oligomer mixture into
a solidied polymer through exposure to UV light. A platform stabilizes overhanging structures, descending after each layer for a fresh resin application. Post-curing
is usually necessary after draining excess resin.
DLP also creates free-standing sculptures by selectively crosslinking a photoresin layer by layer using light. Unlike SLA, DLP exposes all layers simultaneously, reducing the impact of oxygen inhibition. DLP accommodates slurries
containing metal or ceramic particles and unlled photopolymers, creating inorganic and polymeric phase blends [27]. Commercial resins’ crosslinking density
and mechanical properties, such as compressive yield strength and elastic modulus,
are inuenced by light intensity [28].
Studies like Patel etal. highlight innovations in UV-curable elastomer systems
for DLP-based AM, showcasing an enhanced ability to create pliable and exible
three-dimensional constructions and gadgets. Mu etal.’s research explores conductive structures made of photoresin and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs),
showcasing their potential applications in capacitive sensors, electrically activated
shape memory composites, and stretchable circuits [29]. Adjusting MWCNT

14 Challenges andPerspective ofManufacturing Techniques inBiomedical Applications
concentrations and printing parameters optimizes conductivity and printing quality,
with minor effects on mechanical characteristics.
441
14.4 AM ofNanocomposites
Several writers used nanoparticles (NPs) to create materials with better properties,
such as microscale composites. Perez etal., for instance, investigated the impact of
adding reinforcing nanoparticles on the fracture surface features and mechanical
attributes of ABS [30]. Tensile test ndings showed that, compared to empty polymer segments, NPs reinforced ABS with 5-weight percent nano titanium dioxide
(TiO2) showed a 13.2% improvement in tensile strength. When nanoparticles were
introduced, however, all printed composite sections displayed decreased elongation
and embrittlement.
Lastly, FDM printing has made equal use of CNTs and graphene, which are
mixed into thermoplastic laments. In order to create novel conductive mixes,
Rymansaib etal. synthesized graphite ake microparticles and carbon nanobers
(CNFs), which were then mixed with PS [31]. With a well-dened active geometric
surface area, the CNF/PCNF/graphite (10/80/10wt%) composites offer high conductivity and robust electrochemical contact. The printed electrodes are reusable
upon polishing, have a robust interface to the PS shell, and exhibit acceptable signalto- background voltametric responses. Similar investigations were conducted by
Lewicki etal., who found that the alignment of the bers causes AM CNFs to display extremely orthotropic mechanical and electrical responses.
14.5 Biomanufacturing
14.5.1 Tissue Engineering
Tissue engineering (TE) is a major application eld of additive manufacturing (AM)
due to its stringent requirements for scaffold porosity, pore size, and anatomical
structure, which are often unachievable through traditional fabrication methods.
During tissue engineering (TE), a biodegradable scaffold with an interconnected
porous structure is implanted. It may also include cells and bioactive chemicals. The
scaffold is a temporary template that promotes cell adhesion and mechanical function during tissue regeneration. Scaffold features such as porosity, chemistry, topography, and stiffness greatly inuence cell behavior and differentiation [32].
Customized additive manufacturing techniques improve the scaffold’s mechanical
and biological qualities by providing exact control over scaffold composition and
design at different sizes. Cutting-edge techniques like hybrid AM and μSLA enable
sub-micrometer structural control to provide cells with nanometric cues [33].

442
Computer-aided design and manufacturing development have made it possible to
create scaffolds with customized porous structures that are clinically scaled and
anatomically formed. Continuous progress in processing biomedical polymers and
composites makes it possible to build tissues with various structural and functional
properties, such as intricate solid organs and tubular structures, by customizing 3D
scaffolds. Promising rst results have been observed in clinical applications, such as
PCL devices manufactured by FDM for dental and craniofacial repair [34].
Y. O. Waidi et al.
14.5.2 Organ-on-a-Chip Models
The development of sophisticated invitro 3D models has been signicantly aided
by the advancement of additive manufacturing (AM), which has made it possible to
fabricate four essential components in a single continuous process: microuidic
chips, live cells, or microtissues for culturing, stimulus loading components, and
readout sensors. The construction of heterogeneous microenvironments that resemble genuine tissues is made possible by bioprinting’s capacity to accurately arrange
various materials, including hydrogels, cells, growth factors, and bacteria, in
sequential order with great spatial precision. Incorporating energy actuators (e.g.,
electrical and mechanical transducers) and sensors on chips allows for applying
stimuli to cells and monitoring their activities, promoting the maturation and functionality of micronized organs. Some approaches integrate mechanical straininducing actuators, electrochemical sensors on the same chip, and complex uid
handling modules. Alternatively, magnetic particles or memory-shape actuators can
induce mechanical stimulation.
14.6 Conclusion
Different materials demand unique manufacturing processes for seamless integration into biomedical products/devices. However, one commonality across all classes
of materials is the increased adoption of additive manufacturing techniques in making customized parts. Design, being an integral part of the 3D printing process commands more focused research, especially in the inverse design workow, to make
standardized techniques of rendering image les and 3D models from patient scan
images. This can certainly increase the reach of 3D printing to the masses, as more
clinicians will be trained in the process. Also, every 3D printing process has a printer
resolution or dimensional constraint, depending on the feed material, limiting the
printing accuracy and size. This can be overcome by carefully optimizing printing
parameters that are unique to the feed material. Additionally, the emergence of 4D
printing [35], which uses smart materials, such as shape memory alloys [9] and
shape memory polymers [36], has further extended the capabilities of conventional
3D printing. This can now enable the fabrication of intricate and biomimetic

14 Challenges andPerspective ofManufacturing Techniques inBiomedical Applications
443
structures [37] with dynamic capabilities to conform to tissues better and adapt over
time. However, standardization of the fabrication of such stimuli-materials through
3D printing, control of design parameters, shape-changing efciency and rates is of
paramount importance to leverage the full benets of these techniques in
biomanufacturing.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge Fig.14.1, which is adapted with per-
mission from license Number 5723471318796 to the concerned press.
References
1. Schubert, C.; Van Langeveld, M.C.; Donoso, L.A., Innovations in 3D printing: a 3D overview
from optics to organs. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2013.
2. Ursan, I.D.; Chiu, L.; Pierce, A., Three-dimensional drug printing: a structured review. Journal
of the American Pharmacists Association 2013, 53 (2), 136–144.
3. Blok, L.G.; Longana, M.L.; Yu, H.; Woods, B.K., An investigation into 3D printing of bre
reinforced thermoplastic composites. Additive Manufacturing 2018, 22, 176–186.
4. Singh, S.; Ramakrishna, S., Biomedical applications of additive manufacturing: present and
future. Current opinion in biomedical engineering 2017, 2, 105–115.
5. Sun, W.; Starly, B.; Nam, J.; Darling, A., Bio-CAD modeling and its applications in computeraided tissue engineering. Computer-Aided Design 2005, 37 (11), 1097–1114.
6. Prasad, K.; Bazaka, O.; Chua, M.; Rochford, M.; Fedrick, L.; Spoor, J.; Symes, R.; Tieppo, M.;
Collins, C.; Cao, A.; Markwell, D.; Ostrikov, K.; Bazaka, K., Metallic Biomaterials: Current
Challenges and Opportunities. Materials 2017, 10 (8), 884.
7. Pacici, L.; De Angelis, F.; Oreci, A.; Cielo, A., Metals used in maxillofacial surgery. ORAL
& implantology 2016, 9 (Suppl 1/2016 to N 4/2016), 107.
8. Mahajan, A.; Devgan, S.; Kalyanasundaram, D., Surface alteration of Cobalt-Chromium and
duplex stainless steel alloys for biomedical applications: a concise review. Materials and
Manufacturing Processes 2023, 38 (3), 260–270.
9. Marin, E.; Lanzutti, A., Biomedical Applications of Titanium Alloys: A Comprehensive
Review. Materials 2023, 17 (1), 114.
10. Subramani, K.; Mathew, R. T., Chapter 6—Titanium Surface Modication Techniques for
Dental Implants—From Microscale to Nanoscale. In Emerging Nanotechnologies in Dentistry,
Subramani, K.; Ahmed, W., Eds. William Andrew Publishing: Boston, 2012; pp.85–102.
11. Wang, H.; Estrin, Y.; Fu, H.; Song, G.; Zúberová, Z., The effect of pre-processing and grain
structure on the bio-corrosion and fatigue resistance of magnesium alloy AZ31. Advanced
Engineering Materials 2007, 9 (11), 967–972.
12. Zhang, J.; Xu, C.; Jing, Y.; Lv, S.; Liu, S.; Fang, D.; Zhuang, J.; Zhang, M.; Wu, R., New
horizon for high performance Mg-based biomaterial with uniform degradation behavior:
Formation of stacking faults. Scientic reports 2015, 5 (1), 13933.
13. Gu, Q.; Hao, J.; Lu, Y.; Wang, L.; Wallace, G.G.; Zhou, Q., Three-dimensional bio-printing.
Science China Life Sciences 2015, 58, 411–419.
14. Karande, T.S.; Ong, J.L.; Agrawal, C.M., Diffusion in Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering
Scaffolds: Design Issues Related to Porosity, Permeability, Architecture, and Nutrient Mixing.
Annals of Biomedical Engineering 2004, 32 (12), 1728–1743.
15. Hollister, S.J., Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering. Nature Materials 2005, 4 (7),
518–524.
16. Santos, G., The importance of metallic materials as biomaterials. Adv Tissue Eng Regen Med
Open Access 2017, 3 (1), 300–302.

444
17. Sutton, A.T.; Kriewall, C.S.; Leu, M.C.; Newkirk, J.W., Powder characterisation techniques
and effects of powder characteristics on part properties in powder-bed fusion processes. Virtual
and physical prototyping 2017, 12 (1), 3–29.
18. Sun, S.; Brandt, M.; Easton, M., Powder bed fusion processes: An overview. Laser additive
manufacturing 2017, 55–77.
19. Gibson, I.; Rosen, D.; Stucker, B.; Khorasani, M.; Gibson, I.; Rosen, D.; Stucker, B.; Khorasani,
M., Powder bed fusion. Additive manufacturing technologies 2021, 125–170.
20. Ahn, D.-G., Directed energy deposition (DED) process: State of the art. International Journal
of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology 2021, 8, 703–742.
21. Fousová, M.; Vojtěch, D.; Kubásek, J.; Jablonská, E.; Fojt, J., Promising characteristics of gradient porosity Ti-6Al-4V alloy prepared by SLM process. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior
of Biomedical Materials 2017, 69, 368–376.
22. Harrysson, O.L. A.; Cansizoglu, O.; Marcellin-Little, D. J.; Cormier, D.R.; West, H. A.,
Direct metal fabrication of titanium implants with tailored materials and mechanical properties using electron beam melting technology. Materials Science and Engineering: C 2008, 28
(3), 366–373.
23. Altıparmak, S.C.; Yardley, V. A.; Shi, Z.; Lin, J., Extrusion-based additive manufacturing
technologies: State of the art and future perspectives. Journal of Manufacturing Processes
2022, 83, 607–636.
24. Wickramasinghe, S.; Do, T.; Tran, P., FDM-based 3D printing of polymer and associated
composite: A review on mechanical properties, defects and treatments. Polymers 2020, 12
(7), 1529.
25. Zhao, Y.; Chen, Y.; Zhou, Y., Novel mechanical models of tensile strength and elastic property
of FDM AM PLA materials: Experimental and theoretical analyses. Materials & Design 2019,
181, 108089.
26. Mitteramskogler, G.; Gmeiner, R.; Felzmann, R.; Gruber, S.; Hofstetter, C.; Stamp, J.; Ebert,
J.; Wachter, W.; Laubersheimer, J., Light curing strategies for lithography-based additive manufacturing of customized ceramics. Additive Manufacturing 2014, 1, 110–118.
27. Li, Y.; Mao, Q.; Yin, J.; Wang, Y.; Fu, J.; Huang, Y., Theoretical prediction and experimental
validation of the digital light processing (DLP) working curve for photocurable materials.
Additive Manufacturing 2021, 37, 101716.
28. Borrello, J.; Nasser, P.; Iatridis, J.C.; Costa, K.D., 3D printing a mechanically-tunable acrylate resin on a commercial DLP-SLA printer. Additive manufacturing 2018, 23, 374–380.
29. Iervolino, F.; Bonessa, A.; Foti, G.; Levi, M.; Suriano, R., Additive Manufacturing of Electrically
Conductive Nanocomposites Filled with Carbon Nanotubes. Advanced Engineering Materials
2022, 24 (12), 2200947.
30. Perez, A.; Roberson, D.; Wicker, R., Fracture surface analysis of 3D-printed tensile specimens
of novel ABS-based materials. J Fail Anal Prev, 14: 343–353. 2014.
31. Rymansaib, Z.; Iravani, P.; Emslie, E.; Medvidović-Kosanović, M.; Sak-Bosnar, M.; Verdejo,
R.; Marken, F., All-Polystyrene 3D-Printed Electrochemical Device with Embedded Carbon
Nanober-Graphite-Polystyrene Composite Conductor. Electroanalysis 2016, 28 (7),
1517–1523.
32. Giannitelli, S.; Mozetic, P.; Trombetta, M.; Rainer, A., Combined additive manufacturing
approaches in tissue engineering. Acta biomaterialia 2015, 24, 1–11.
33. Bose, S.; Koski, C.; Vu, A.A., Additive manufacturing of natural biopolymers and composites
for bone tissue engineering. Materials Horizons 2020, 7 (8), 2011–2027.
34. Yeong, W.; Sudarmadji, N.; Yu, H.; Chua, C.; Leong, K.; Venkatraman, S.; Boey, Y.; Tan, L.,
Porous polycaprolactone scaffold for cardiac tissue engineering fabricated by selective laser
sintering. Acta biomaterialia 2010, 6 (6), 2028–2034.
35. Choudhury, S.; Asthana, S.; Homer-Vanniasinkam, S.; Chatterjee, K., Emerging trends in
biliary stents: a materials and manufacturing perspective. Biomaterials Science 2022, 10 (14),
3716–3729.
36. Choudhury, S.; Joshi, A.; Dasgupta, D.; Ghosh, A.; Asthana, S.; Chatterjee, K., 4D Printed
Biocompatible Magnetic Composite for Minimally Invasive Deployable Structures. 2022.
Y. O. Waidi et al.

14 Challenges andPerspective ofManufacturing Techniques inBiomedical Applications
37. Joshi, A.; Choudhury, S.; Asthana, S.; Homer-Vanniasinkam, S.; Nambiar, U.; Chatterjee, K.,
Emerging 4D fabrication of next-generation nerve guiding conduits: a critical perspective.
Biomaterials Science 2023, 11 (24), 7703–7708.
38. Prasad, A., Bhasney, S. M., Prasannavenkadesan, V., Sankar, M. R., & Katiyar, V. (2023).
Polylactic acid reinforced with nano-hydroxyapatite bioabsorbable cortical screws for bone
fracture treatment. Journal of Polymer Research, 30(5), 177.
39. Prasad, A., Bhasney, S. M., Prasannavenkadesan, V., Sankar, M. R., & Katiyar, V. (2023).
Nano-hydroxyapatite reinforced polylactic acid bioabsorbable cancellous screws for bone
fracture xations. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 140(43), e54577.
40. Prasad, A. (2021). Bioabsorbable polymeric materials for biolms and other biomedical applications: Recent and future trends. Materials Today: Proceedings, 44, 2447–2453.
41. Prasad, A. (2021). State of art review on bioabsorbable polymeric scaffolds for bone tissue
engineering. Materials Today: Proceedings, 44, 1391–1400.
42. Prasad, A., Bhasney, S., Katiyar, V., & Sankar, M.R. (2017). Biowastes processed hydroxyapatite lled poly (lactic acid) bio-composite for open reduction internal xation of small
bones. Materials Today: Proceedings, 4(9), 10153–10157.
43. Chakraborty, G., Padmashree, R., & Prasad, A. (2023). Recent advancement of surface modication techniques of 2-D nanomaterials. Materials Science and Engineering: B, 297, 116817.
44. Prasad, A., Chakraborty, G., & Kumar, A. (2022). Bio-based environmentally benign polymeric resorbable materials for orthopedic xation applications. In Advanced Materials for
Biomedical Applications (pp.251–266). CRC Press.
45. Prasad, A. (2022). Biomaterial-based nanobers scaffolds in tissue engineering application.
In Functional Biomaterials: Drug Delivery and Biomedical Applications (pp. 245–264).
Singapore: Springer Singapore.
46. Sarkar, K., Dutta, K., Chatterjee, A., Sarkar, J., Das, D., Prasad, A., … & De, S. (2023).
Nanotherapeutic potential of antibacterial folic acid-functionalized nanoceria for woundhealing applications. Nanomedicine, 18(2), 109–123.
47. Katiyar Vimal, Prasad Arbind, Sankar M.R., Bhasney S.M. (2022). Process for the preparation
of Polymer composite based Cancellous screw and Pins (Indian Patent No. 401811).
48. Katiyar Vimal, Prasad Arbind, Sankar M.R., (2022). Process for the preparation of resorbable
polymeric composite bone stable (Indian Patent No. 393675).
49. Katiyar Vimal, Prasad Arbind, Sankar M.R., (2023). Process for the preparation of Polymer
composite based Cancellous screw and Pins (Indian Patent No. 449153).
50. Katiyar Vimal, Prasad Arbind, Sankar M.R., (2024). Resorbable composite bone plate (Indian
Patent No. 500905).
51. Prasad, A., Datta, S., Kumar, A., & Gupta, M. (2023). Introduction to Next-Generation
Materials for Biomedical Applications. Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Techniques
for Biomedical Applications, 1–24.
52. Chakraborty, G., Padmashree, R., & Prasad, A. (2023). Recent advancement of surface modication techniques of 2-D nanomaterials. Materials Science and Engineering: B, 297, 116817.
53. Chakraborty, G., Pandey, V., Prasad, A., & Kumar, A. (2023). Introduction to Sustainable
Manufacturing for Industries 4.0. In Sustainable Smart Manufacturing Processes in Industry
4.0 (pp.1–17). CRC Press
54. Paul, A. K., Borkotoky, S.S., & Prasad, A. (2023). Nanohydroxyapatite-Based Composite
Materials and Processing. Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Techniques for Biomedical
Applications, 157–183.
55. Prasad, A., Chakraborty, G., & Kumar, A. (2022). Bio-based environmentally benign polymeric resorbable materials for orthopedic xation applications (pp.251-266). Boca Raton, FL,
USA: CRC Press.
56. Joshi, A.; Choudhury, S.; Baghel, V.S.; Ghosh, S.; Gupta, S.; Lahiri, D.; Ananthasuresh,
G.; Chatterjee, K., 4D Printed Programmable Shape-morphing Hydrogels as Intraoperative
Self- folding Nerve Conduits for Sutureless Neurorrhaphy. Advanced Healthcare Materials
2023, 2300701.
445

Index
A
Additive manufacturing (AM), 183, 201, 203,
213, 254, 260, 261, 269, 287–295,
298, 412–414, 419, 434–442
Articular cartilage, 16, 17, 28–42, 44, 46, 48,
49, 52, 57, 58, 63, 65–67,
347–350, 381
Articial intelligence (AI), 213, 214,
297, 417–419
B
Biocompatibility, 2, 3, 43, 44, 46, 48, 58, 85,
92, 115–117, 119, 120, 128,
130–132, 135, 136, 139, 142, 177,
179, 185, 187, 190, 192, 201–203,
207–209, 211–214, 238, 241, 242,
253, 254, 259–262, 266–270, 273,
280, 282, 284, 293, 294, 297, 298,
315, 321, 328, 331, 337, 338, 346,
349, 365, 366, 368–370, 375–380,
383, 386–388, 412, 435
Biofabrication, 213
Bioinspiration, 8, 10, 115, 123, 203, 380
Biointerfaces, 2, 8, 9, 14, 15, 21, 246
Biomarkers, 81, 85, 95–97, 119, 154, 294
Biomaterials, 17, 48, 115, 168, 203, 265, 314,
337, 365, 435
Biomedical applications, 9, 44, 45, 116, 120,
122, 139, 154, 186, 200, 201, 203,
213–215, 252–298, 314–322, 328,
330, 334, 337, 338, 434–443
Biomedical devices, 130, 171, 173, 177, 178,
182, 184, 185, 188–192, 202–205,
207, 212–214, 260, 269, 274, 279,
285, 291, 292, 434
Biomedical systems, 171, 172, 174–176,
190, 191
Biomimetics, 3, 8, 10, 21, 30, 31, 115, 116,
123–127, 134, 136–138, 188,
192, 202, 203, 211, 218, 219,
223, 224, 227, 228, 265, 292,
293, 296, 314, 321, 379–381,
383, 419, 439, 442
Bio-tribology, 2–4, 8–10, 12–15, 21, 28–67,
92, 150, 177–178, 185–191, 218,
236, 238–245
C
Cell proliferation, 43, 125, 134, 137, 438
Contact lenses, 159, 170, 171, 224
Controlled releases, 42, 97, 119, 120, 124,
130, 253–255, 258–262, 265, 266,
269, 285, 287, 288, 293–296,
298, 332
D
Degradation, 40, 44, 48, 52, 54, 59, 97, 209,
218, 227, 260–262, 267, 269,
271–273, 276, 277, 280–282,
285–287, 290, 292, 294, 295,
331–333, 337, 338, 348, 362–366,
375, 379, 384, 385, 390, 403,
417, 439
Dental implants, 14, 237, 240, 241, 338
Device customization, 201
Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
A. Kumar et al. (eds.), Applications of Biotribology in Biomedical Systems,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58327-8
447© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
