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_5632_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
112 O. Sarkar et al.
degrading nanocellulose in vivo, nanocellulose is rarely used alone or in combination with composite materials including nanocellulose as the major component to
manufacture implants. Treatment, also known as long-term restoration, is employed.
3. Pectin
Pectin is a typical component of plant cell walls with a high molecular weight and
hydrophilicity, making it a perfect option for hydrogel creation and, ultimately, 3D
bioprinting. Ionic crosslinking with CaCl2 considerably raises yield stress, improving extrusion capability and shape accuracy of the printed component. Pectin is
produced commercially by using acidic and heat extraction on leftover materials
from the apple, cider, and juice industries. Gelation can occur when divalent or
trivalent cations and acidic conditions are present, as well as when densely
concentrated pectin solutions are used, which increases polymeric connections.
Pectin, like alginate, is easily crosslinked when divalent calcium ions are present.
These ions engage with the carboxyl groups in pectin to create bridges between
homogalacturonan chains. One significant drawback is that it has a restricted ability
to cling to cells, just as alginate and other polysaccharides. However, studies on the
use of pectin as a scaffold for bone tissue engineering have shown promising
outcomes. Cell adhesion can be increased by chemical modification or by combining
pectin with other materials, such as polyvinyl alcohol (Klemm et al. 2011; Dufresne
2013; Du et al. 2017; Masaoka et al. 1993).
5.5 Sustainability in 3D Printing
The sustainable biomaterial represents a synergy between renewable natural
resources and biomaterials, offering promising avenues for pioneering sustainable
development strategies soon. Currently, there is notable emphasis and progress
directed towards crafting materials from sustainable sources, gradually supplanting
conventional materials. (Biswal et al. 2020
has enabled the integration of diverse materials, including biopolymers and green
biomaterials into the bio-printing process. These biomaterials are selected for their
printability, compatibility with biological systems, and natural decomposability. By
choosing sustainable green materials, the resulting 3D-printed constructs not only
avoid contributing to pollution but also aid in environmental remediation efforts
(Finny
materials derived from algae, particularly polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), which
exhibit promising potential as a sustainable substitute. These materials not only
uphold superior mechanical p roperties but also boast eco-friendliness (Grira et al.
2023). Algae derived-PHAs present a viable alternative to fossil-based PHAs, due to
their comparable mechanical characteristics in addition to being eco-friendly. Algae
exhibit the capacity to generate diverse hydrogel-forming polymers, some of which
are presently utilized in 3D printing applications such as bioinks, while others are
still being refined to meet specific printing requirements. Exploiting other algae
For instance, researchers have investigated the 3D printability of
2024).
The arrival of 3D printing technologies
).
5 3D Printing and 4D Printing: Sustainable Manufacturing Techniques… 113
derived products like proteins and polysaccharides not only enhances economic
returns but also addresses the growing need for sustainable biomaterials (Grira
et al.
2023). Yet another instance lies in the inherent difficulty of merging functional
bacteria with 3D bioprinting. This involves striking a delicate balance among
material manufacturability, mitigating damage throughout the bioprinting procedure,
and maintaining the activity and viability of the bacteria (Zhang et al.
2023).
Cellulose, a crucial polysaccharide in plant structures, stands as one of Earth’s
most abundant biopolymers. Due to their excellent mechanical properties, cellulosebased bio composites are utilized in material extrusion for 3D printing (Wang et al.
2018). The main benefits of using cellulose-based materials in 3D printing stems
from their accessibility, ease of processing, high aspect ratio, sustainability, and
suitability for chemical modification (Kuhnt and Camarero-Espinosa 2021). Essential steps in bio-fabrication involve optimizing the selection of bio-inks, considering
factors like 3D printability, compatibility with microbes and chemicals, and the
degradation of contaminants. Incorporating nanomaterials, such as catalytic
nanoparticles, into 3D-printed structures can enhance pollutant degradation efficiency. However, it is crucial to evaluate the sustainability of using these particles.
Furthermore, biodegradable and bio-based printing materials research aligns with
sustainability objectives in bioremediation, reducing the environmental effect of the
remediation tools themselves (Wei et al. 2017) (Fig. 5.2).
Fig. 5.2 Diagrammatic representation of sustainable development in 3D bioprinting
114 O. Sarkar et al.
5.5.1 What Makes your Biomaterial more Sustainable?
• Reducing the amount of raw materials and packaging materials (using plant-
based bioplastics for packaging bio-printing materials) (Zimmermann et al.
used, with a greater emphasis on the quality of the manufactured product. In 3D
bioprinting, using optimized design software can minimize the amount of bio-
polymer needed for scaffolds, reducing waste. For instance, printing a porous
scaffold instead of a solid one decreases the material required without
compromising structural integrity.
• It’s necessary to steer clear of single-use items that can’t be recycled or
composted. Choosing products made from renewable resources is preferred
over those derived from fossil fuels.
• Utilizing alginate, deriv ed from seaweed, as a bio-ink in bio-printing, reduces
reliance on petroleum-based products (Grira et al. 2023). Alginate is not only
renewable but also biocompatible, making it ideal for medical applications.
• Sustainability should be upheld throughout the lifecycle of manufactured
products, including the materials used, potential applications, and the recovery
of materials, such as recycling unused bio-ink, from waste and during feedstock
growth.
• Materials like collagen and gelatin are both biodegradable and derived from
renewable sources (Osidak et al.
2020).
• It’s essential to integrate sustainability considerations into social, health, eco-
nomic, and environmental aspects. Products should be manufactured and
designed with recyclability, reusability, or composability in mind.
• Designing modular bio printed structures that can be
disassembled,
components reused in new prints helps with resource conservation.
• Both the state and central governments should encourage sustainable agricultural
facilities for farmers and other communities.
• Ensuring that bio-inks and feedstocks are sourced from non-GMO plants protects
biodiversity and aligns with organi c farming principles. For instance, using
non-GMO cornstarch as a raw material for biopolymer production (Álvarez-
Chávez et al. 2012).
• Chemicals that adhere to the twelve principles of green chemistry are favored for
use in cultivated farms (Ardila Fierro and Hernández 2021).
• It’s important to refrain from using nanomaterials and chemicals that pose
environmental and public health risks throughout their life cycle. For example,
utilizing naturally derived nanoscale cellulose instead of silver nanoparticles
(Ee and Li 2021).
• Each stage of the production process should be localized to respective regions.
2020)
and their
By adopting these sustainable practices, 3D bio-printing can significantly reduce
their environmental impact while advancing medical and industrial applications.
5 3D Printing and 4D Printing: Sustainable Manufacturing Techniques… 115
5.6 Advancements in 4D Bioprinting
Even though 3D bio-printing technologies are being continuously utilized to create
complex structures with accurate control in an automated way, the current 3D
structures cannot accurately replicate the dynamic nature of tissues. This is because
of changes that occur in tissue structure over time due to its regeneration and repair
mechanism (Ashammakhi et al.
dependent features into 3D printed tissue structures to replicate these natural
changes. To address this limitation, 4D bio-printing has been developed and used.
This technique uses stimuli-responsive biomaterials and cell traction forces to create
tissue constructs that are structura lly dynamic. 4D bio-printing consists of the 3D
printing of cell-laden materials that can respond to internal cell forces and external
stimulations (Ashammakhi et al. 2018). The advent of 4D bio-printing technology
has brought numerous innovations and revolutions to the biomedical field. The
method utilizes biomaterials and diverse cell types to fabricate structures for
regenerating tissues, such as bones and cartilage, neural and skin tissues etc.
Additionally, 4D bio-printing aids in the creation of bioactuators, biorobotics, and
biosensors, drug delivery and wound healing systems (Noroozi et al.
2018). Thus, it is necessary to incorporate time-
2023).
5.6.1 Smart Polymers
Stimuli-responsive polymers, or smart polymers, alter their physical or chemical
properties in response to specific stimuli such as heat, light, electric and magnetic
fields, pH levels, redox potential, and mechanical force (Wei et al.
capacity to translate minor environmental variations into noticeable reactions makes
them valuable in fields such as tissue engineering, controlled drug delivery, soft
robotics, electronics, and biomaterials with enhanced mechanical strength
(Mukhopadhyay et al. 2014).
The benefit of consuming smart polymers in bio-printing lies in their capacity to
create intricate yet functional materials that automatically react to envir onmental
stimuli. This eliminates the need for external control. When the sophisticated
structures enabled by 4D manufacturing are combined with the responsive nature
of smart polymers, the potential applications become endless (Ryan T Shafranek
et al. 2019). For instance, cellulose hydrophilic nature allows it to achieve steady
bloat in water. This property can be used in 4D printing and drug delivery methods
(Khalid and Arif
rendering them suitable for 4D printing applications. However further research is
required in this field to overcome the mechanical variability and slow stimulus
responsiveness of natural hydrogels (Grira et al. 2023). To produce hydrogels,
biopolymers are the most largely used raw material obtained from agriculture,
forests and livestock and their byproducts as they are cost effective, renewable,
biocompatible, biodegradable, abundant in nature and more suitable from structural
and mechanical means.
022). Numerous hydrogels exhibit responsiveness to stimuli,
2
2017). Their
116 O. Sarkar et al.
In recent years, nanomaterials have been greatly in focus for bio-fabrication
processes due to their exceptional ability to meet new scientific demands that arise
from nanoscale which generates new possibilities. A recent development in this field
is 4D bio-fabrication, which seeks to build and refine 3D biological structures
through dynamic self-assembly processes. These structures can change their form
and functions over time, especially when exposed to specific chemical, biological, or
physical stimuli in smart biomaterials (Silva 2019).
5.6.2 Applications of 4D Bio-Printing in Sustainable Manufacturing
In 4D bio-printing, materials that respond to stimuli and then degrade into harmless
by-products are preferred. Using biodegradable polymers like polylactic acid (PLA)
ensures that post-use, the materials do not contribute to landfill waste (Costa et al.
2021). Using bio-based materials/green biomaterials in 4D printing minimizes waste
production and environmental impact. Due to their unique ability of changing
dynamics under the effect of external stimuli like heat, temperature, light etc. 4D
bio-printing can play a huge role in the medical field such as offering rapid
development in customizing scaffolds for implants which makes it time effective
over other manufacturing techniques (Ameta et al. 2022).
Bio-printing organs through 4D bio-fabrication technologies can also address
health issues by reducing the need for donor organs, thus having a profound societal
benefit. 4D bio-printing allows for exact management of the spatial arrangement of
different technologies that can autonomously fold or unfold to encapsulate and
release drugs or cells in a controlled, programmable way. This ability to have control
and optimize spatial and temporal administration of therapeutic agents makes 4D
bio-printing a reliable manufacturing technique in drug development industries
(Lukin et al. 2019). 4D bio-fabrication has opened opportunities in development
of green bio-fabrication related to the growth of sustainable alternatives aiming at the
production of bio constructs (Silva 2019). However, the 4D bio-printing approach
still needs to be further enhanced to adapt well with the cell’ s biological behavior
and functionalities in a safer and foreseeable manner (Ashammakhi et al. 2018)
(Table 5.1).
Table 5.1 Comparison between 3D and 4D bioprinting
3D Bioprinting 4D Bioprinting
Involves creating a three-dimensional
structure using biological material like cells
and biomaterials.
Primary used for tissue engineering and
regenerative medicine applications.
Static structures with predetermined shape
and functions
Limited a
processes.
o mimic dynamic biological
bility t
Adds an additional dimension of time to the
printing process.
Allows printed structures to change shape or
function over time in response to external stimuli.
Enables the creation of self-assembling or selfregulating tissues and organs.
Holds potential
adaptive biological structures.
for creating more complex and
5 3D Printing and 4D Printing: Sustainable Manufacturing Techniques… 117
5.7 Case Studies on 3D and 4D Bioprinting
5.7.1 Revolutionizing Personalized Medicine: A Case Study of 3D
Bioplotter Implementation at Hanover Medical School
Hanover Medical School’s Department of Otolaryngology (ENT) embarked on a
groundbreaking project in 2019 aimed at developing individualized implants for
patients. Led by Dr. Vina Shaper, the Pharmacology of the Inner Ear research group
recognized the potential of 3D bioprinting technology to revolutionize personalized
medicine. This case study explores their journey in implementing the 3D bio-plotter
from Desktop Health, highlighting its applications, challenges, and prospects.
The field of personalized medicine is rapidly evolving, with a growing emphasis
on tailored treatments to meet individual patient needs. Traditional manufacturing
methods for implants often fall short in delivering precise, patient-specific solutions.
Recognizing this gap, Hanover Medical School invested in advanced technology to
pioneer a new era of personalized healthcare. In 2020, Hanover Medical School
acquired the 3D bio-plotter, a cutting-edge printing system designed for medical
applications. Dr. Shaper’s team identified key requirements for successful implementation: ease of use, precision, reliability, and ease of cleaning. These criteria
were essential to ensure seamless integration into the clinical workflow.
The b
Using x-ray imaging, the team created implantations tailored to each patient’s unique
anatomy, particularly focusing on cases like congenital atresia of the outer wear. By
precisely printing patient-specific stents, the team successfully prevented scar formation and mitigated postoperative inflammation and trauma reactions. While the
journey towards personalized medicine presented numerous challenges, Hanover
Medical School’s research group navigated them with innovation and perseverance.
Ensuring reproducibility in printing, maintaining sterility, and optimizing drug
delivery were among the hurdles addressed. Through meticulous quality management and continuous refinement, the team overcomes these obstacles, paving the
way for broader adoption.
The succes
advancements. With plans to set up a second printer directly in the clinic, Hanover
Medical School aims to streamline the process further, enabling clinicians to print
implants onsite for immediate patient care. Additionally, the research group is
exploring the development of biodegradable implants, eliminating the need for
explanation and offering long-term benefits to patients. Hanover Medical School’s
pioneering efforts in personalized medicine have far-reaching implications for
healthcare worldwide. By leveraging the capabilities of the 3D bio-plotter, the
research group has demonstrated the potential to improve patient outcomes, reduce
healthcare costs, and revolutionize the standard of care for a wide range of clinical
conditions. As they continue to innovate and collaborate, their vision of
individualized, drug-eluting implants holds promise for transforming the landscape
of medical treatment globally.
otter’s versatility opened doors to a myriad of clinical applications.
io-pl
s of the bio-plotter implementation laid a solid foundation for future
118 O. Sarkar et al.
The case study of Hanover Medi cal School’s journey with the 3D bio-plotter
underscores the transformative power of technology in healthcare. Through visionary leadership, interdisciplinary collaboration, and a commitment to excellence,
Dr. Vina Shaper and her team have set a precedent for personalized medicine,
inspiring future generations to push the boundaries of innovation in the pursuit of
better health for all (Vina
2023).
5.7.2 Advancing Tissue Engineering with Next-Generation
Bioprinting: A Case Study of the NGbR System
Recent years have seen notable progress in tissue engineering, driven by
advancements in bio-printing technology. This case study explores the application
of the Next-Generation Bio-printing Research (NGbR) syst em, a disruptive platform
developed by Poitus in partnership with Scintica Instrumentation for 4D
bio-printing. The NGbR system represents a paradigm shift in bio-printing, offering
precise control over cell patterning and tissue fabrication. Through a cytocentric
approach and laser-assisted bio-printing capabilities, the NGbR system enables highresolution printing and enhanced cell viability, essential for the development of
complex tissues and organs. Tissue engineering holds immense promise for regenerative medicine, offering solutions to tissue loss and organ failure. Bio-printing
technology plays a crucial role in this endeavor, allowing researchers to precisely
deposit cells and biomaterials to create functional tissues. The NGbR system,
introduced by Poitus and distributed by Scintica Instrumentation, represents the
next frontier in bio-printing technology. By leveraging laser-assisted bio-printing
and advanced robotics, the NGbR system offers unprecedented control and versatility in tissue fabrication.
In t
tissue constructs for various applications, including wound healing, organ regeneration, and disease modeling. The workflow involved designing tissue scaffolds using
computer-aided design (CAD) software, optimizing cell and biomaterial
formulations, and implementing precise printing parameters. The NGbR system’s
capabilities in single-cel l resolution and 4D bio-printing were harnessed to mimic
native tissue architecture and functionality. The application of the NG bR system
yielded promising results in tissue engineering research. High-resolution printing
enabled the creation of intricate tissue architectures, while laser-assisted bio-printing
maintained high cell viability and spatial control. Researchers successfully
fabricated tissue constructs with tailored mechanical properties and biological
functionalities, demonstrating the system’s potential for personalized medicine and
drug discovery. Furthermore, the NGbR system facilitated the study of tissue
morphogenesis and disease mechanisms, providing valuable insights into complex
biological processes.
The NGbR
ogy, offering researchers unprecedented capabilities in tissue engineering. By combining precision, versatility, and automation, the system accelerates the development
ase study, researchers utilized the NGbR system to fabricate complex
his c
system represents a significant advancement in bio-printing technol-
5 3D Printing and 4D Printing: Sustainable Manufacturing Techniques… 119
of regenerative therapies and biomedical research. Future enhancements, such as
integrated imaging and real-time monitoring, hold promise for further advancing
tissue engineering applications. Effective collaboration among academia, industry,
and healthcare stakeholders will play a pivotal role in maximizing the benefits of the
Next-Generation Biomedical Research (NGbR) system to enhance patient outcomes
and meet medical needs that are currently unmet. The
convergence of engineering, biology, and medicine in the pursuit
healthcare solutions. Through collaborative efforts and continued research,
bio-printing technology holds the promise of revolutionizing regenerative medicine
and personalized healthcare. The case study highlights the transformative potential
of the NGbR system and underscores the importance of interdisciplinary collabora-
ngineer
tion in advancing tissue e
2022;
Coulth
ard
et
al. 2022).
ing and biomedical research (Jekyll and Gracia
NGbR system exemplifies the
of innovative
5.8 Challenges and Future Directions in 3D and 4D Bioprinting
Challenges
Both 3D and 4D bio-printing encounter obstacles and present future pathways for
advancement in biomedical engineering. 3D bio-printing encounters several
obstacles in contrast to non-biological printing, spanning material selection, cell
viability, and ethical considerations. These challenges are broadly classified into two
categories: technical hurdles and ethical or legal dilemmas.
5.8.1 The Technical Challenges in 3D Bio-Printing Include
1. Printability: Attaining exact and precise placement of bio-ink requires enhanced
resolution to optimize interaction and regulation within the 3D microenviron-
ment. Expediting the printing process and expanding its scale are essential for
ensuring commercial feasibility.
2. Mechanical Properties: Ensuring the mechanical strength of printed tissues
comparable to native tissue remains a challenge. Strategies such as using sacrifi-
cial materials during printing or incorporating them into the construct are
explored to enhance mechanical properties.
3. Vascularization: Overcoming hurdles in vascularization is critical. Approaches
include building vasculature during bioprinting using biodegradable or synthetic
polymers or mixing angiogenic factors in the bio-ink to attract cells and induce
vasculature formation later.
4. Tissue Complexity:
due to the intricate architecture and cellular diversity.
5. Equalizing Mechanical Properties: Achieving mechanical properties in
3D-printed organs, like bone or cartilage, that mirror those of natural tissues
while preserving biological functionality remains a challenge. One potential
Creating
blueprints for tissues or organs poses challenges
120 O. Sarkar et al.
strategy involves replicating the elastic moduli of human tissue using scaffolds or
components of the extracellular matrix (ECM).
6. Functional Complexity: Fully functionalizing complex organs like hair follicles,
sweat glands, or the liver, brain, spinal cord, which have heterogeneous cell
populations, is a significant challenge.
7. Immune Reaction: Managing potential immune responses from recipients to
scaffolding material or cells within the printed tissue structure is crucial. Potential
remedies include utilizing bioink derived from native decellularized ECM or
incorporating immunosuppressive molecules during the pre-implantation incuba-
tion phase.
8. Personalization: Developing personalized patient-specific tissues or organs
requires substantial resources and time due to the procurement and isolation of
stem cells and decellularized extracellular matrix.
To address these challenges, continuous updates and advancements in bio-printing
hardware, bioink composition, and printing techniques are necessary to move closer
to printing biomimetic structures and functional organs. Ethical issues surrounding
3D bioprinting include concerns about what should and should not be printed, and to
balance potential risks against benefits. Regulatory frameworks for clinical assessment might require tailored development for 3D bioprinting to tackle concerns
regarding standardization and the expansion of personalized medical interventions.
Global regulatory bodies, such as the FDA, have encountered difficulties with 3D
bioprinting, and there is ambiguity regarding how to manage potential risks linked to
the technology. Only a few countries, such as South Korea and Japan, have provided
some regulatory guidance, which is still quite broad (Chameettachal et al. 2019).
5.8.2 Challenges in 4D Bio-Printing
While there have been notable advancements in utilizing 4D printing for biomedical
purposes, obstacles persist for its broad clinical adoption. The perfor mance relies
heavily on materials like shape-memory polymers and hydrogels, which must
exhibit desired responses to external stimuli. However, finding materials with
suitable properties is challenging, as their mechanical properties may not always
meet application requirements, and combining several materials within a single
structure can be difficult. Moreover, printing procedures might impose limitations,
necessitating materials that can endure high temperatures, mechanical strain, or
exposure to light or chemicals, thus narrowing down material choices even further.
Biocompatibil
limiting material choices for 4D printing. Developing biocompatible smart materials
that meet shape-changing requirements is challenging. Additionally, processing
techniques can affect biocompatibility, with some methods leaving chemicals or
particles that may trigger negative reactions. Maintaining biocompatibility throughout the 4D printing process is essential for successful biomedical applications.
ity is crucial in biomedical engineering to ensure patient safety,
5 3D Printing and 4D Printing: Sustainable Manufacturing Techniques… 121
The speed of deterioration in 4D-printed biomedical devices presents a significant
obstacle in fields like drug delivery, tissue engineering, and implants. It’s essential
for materials to degrade at appropriate rates to avoid harm to patients. Achieving the
desired degradation is intricate due to interactions among materials, manufacturing
processes, and the biological context. Several factors, including material makeup,
structure, and individual patient traits, influence degradation. Resolutions involve
creating biomaterials specifically tailored for 4D printing, employing composite
materials, and refining printing parameters. Collaboration among scientists,
engineers, and biomedical specialists is vital for tackling material challenges in 4D
printing for biomedical applications.
One major advantage of 4D printing in biomedical settings is its ability to create
structures with a wide range of mechanical properties and responsiveness to stimuli
by combining different materials. However, integrating multiple materials poses
challenges due to current printing limitations. Achieving precise control over material distribution and interaction is crucial for obtaining the intended functionality,
requiring advanced printing techniques and materials that can work together seamlessly. Overcoming these challenges entails the development of innovative printing
methods and formulations specifically designed for multi-material 4D printing in the
biomedical sector.
In 4D printing for biomedical engineering, attaining exceptional resolution and
precision is vital to guarantee the optimal functionality of printed structures. For
instance, tissue scaffolds demand exact pore geometry to enable cell attachment,
whereas implantable devices require precise dimensions for correct placement.
Current printing techniques face challenges in achieving the required resolution
and precision, especially with advanced materials. Factors like material viscosity,
printing speed, and hardware setup can impact resolution and precision. Therefore,
the creation of innovative printing technologies and fine-tuning of parameters are
necessary to fulfill the demands of various biomedical applications.
Scalabil
ity p
resents a notable obstacle in 4D printing for biomedical engineering,
as printed structures must accommodate diverse patient requirements while
remaining cost-efficient to manufacture. Existing methods are frequently slow and
lack scalability. Overcoming this challenge involves creating faster printing methods
with reduced material wastage and investigating automation and integration with
alternative manufacturing technologies to enhance production capacity and lower
expenses.
The implem
entation of innovative medical technologies like 4D printing
demands thorough evaluation and approval from regulatory bodies such as the
FDA or EMA to guarantee both safety and effectiveness. Navigating the regulatory
framework can be intricate, involving preclinical assessments, clinical trials, and
post-market monitoring. Due to the innovation of 4D printing, existing regulations
may have gaps, underscoring the requirement for customized guidelines to address
its distinctive characteristics. Collaboration among researchers, manufacturers, and
regulatory authorities is indispensable to ensure adherence to standards of biocompatibility, quality, and safety throughout the validation procedure or 4D-printed
biomedical devices.