Table 2.
The comparison of the main parameters of several common different bioprinting technologies.
| 3D Bioprinting technologies | Print speed | Resolution (μm) | Viscosity of bioink (MPa s) | Cell concentration | Cell viability | Disadvantages | Advantages | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extrusion-based bioprinting | Slow | 100–200 | 30−6 × 107 | High | 80%–90% | Lower resolution | Wide range of available materials, printability of highly viscous bioinks, Can print porous structure | Michael et al. 58 |
| Laser assisted bioprinting | Medium | pL level | 1–300 | ⩽1 × 108/ml | >95% | Slow printing speed (limited by gel method), Comparatively high costs | High-resolution, high cell viability (>95%) | Duan et al.
14
Binder et al. 47 |
| Droplet-based bioprinting | ||||||||
| Thermal inkjet bioprinting | Fast | 30–60 | – | – | 70%–90% | The range of available materials is small, Heat and shear can damage cells, and is not suitable for single-channel printing | Low cost and flexible printing process | Fitzpatrick and Morelli 39 |
| Electrostatic inkjet bioprinting | Fast | 10–60 | – | – | 70% | Low cost and flexible printing process | Chung et al. 41 | |
| Piezoelectric inkjet bioprinting | Fast | 50–100 | – | – | 70%–90% | Contains glass parts, not suitable for printing certain bioinks, such as fibrinogen | Suitable for single channel printing | Chung et al. 41 |
| Stereolithography | Fast | High (≈1 µm) | No limitation | ⩽1 × 108/ml | >85% | Crosslinking requires transparent and photosensitive bioink limiting choice of additives and cell density | High cell viability, High variety of printable bioinks, High resolution of bioprinting | Serra et al.
60
Patrascioiu et al. 61 |
“–” means no valid data is obtained.