Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMedOpen access

Evaluation of the Usability of a Low-Cost 3D Printer in a Tissue Engineering Approach for External Ear Reconstruction.

Kuhlmann C., Blum JC., Schenck TL., Giunta RE., Wiggenhauser PS.

Laboratory Study on Face & Skin, published in Int J Mol Sci (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Laboratory Study
Journal
Int J Mol Sci (2021)
Country
Switzerland
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
34769096
PMCID
PMC8584065
DOI
10.3390/ijms222111667
Citations
7

Abstract (original English)

The use of alloplastic materials instead of autologous cartilage grafts offers a new perspective in craniofacial reconstructive surgery. Particularly for regenerative approaches, customized implants enable the surgeon to restore the cartilaginous framework of the ear without donor site morbidity. However, high development and production costs of commercially available implants impede clinical translation. For this reason, the usability of a low-cost 3D printer (Ultimaker 2+) as an inhouse-production tool for cheap surgical implants was investigated. The open software architecture of the 3D printer was modified in order to enable printing of biocompatible and biologically degradable polycaprolactone (PCL). Firstly, the printing accuracy and limitations of a PCL implant were compared to reference materials acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and polylactic acid (PLA). Then the self-made PCL-scaffold was seeded with adipose-tissue derived stem cells (ASCs), and biocompatibility was compared to a commercially available PCL-scaffold using a cell viability staining (FDA/PI) and a dsDNA quantification assay (PicoGreen). Secondly, porous and solid patient-customized ear constructs were manufactured from mirrored CT-imagining data using a computer-assisted design (CAD) and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAM) approach to evaluate printing accuracy and reproducibility. The results sho

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
Computer-Aided DesignEar AuricleHumansPolyestersPrinting, Three-DimensionalTissue Scaffolds

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research