Table 2.
Summary of 3D bioprinting technologies.
| 3D bioprinting technologies | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| DBB | EBB | LBB | |
| Resolution | Medium (~100 μm) | Low (~200 μm) | High (~20 μm) |
| Droplet size | 50–300 μm | 100 μm–1 mm | 20 μm |
| Printing speed | Fast (1–10000 droplets/s) | Medium (10–1000 μm/s) | Medium (200–1600 μm/s) |
| Preparation time | Short | Medium | Long |
| Cell viability | Medium-high (80–90%) | Medium (40–90%) | High (>95%) |
| Cell density | Low (<106/ml) | High | Medium (~108/ml) |
| Structure stability | Poor | Good | Fair |
| Bioink | Cell suspension | Viscous material | Both |
| Bioink viscosity mPa s−1 | 3.5–12 | 30–6x107 | 1–300 |
| Cost | Low | Medium | High |
| Throughput of printing | High | Medium | Low |
| Advantages | Low cost; high resolution; high throughput; gradients can be generated by altering droplet size | High cell density at physiological level; sample process; ability of printing large structure; good reproducibility | High resolution; single-cell manipulation; low shear stress on cell; no clogging associated with nozzles; wide viscosity range |
| Disadvantages | Easy nozzle clogging; low droplet directionality; can print using only low-viscosity ink; high shear force can cause cell deformation | Low resolution; low cell viability due to high shear force; nozzle clogging; low speed; limited biomaterial | High cost; time-consuming; technically challenging; limited printing volume; low throughput; low cell density |
DBB indicates droplet-based bioprinting; EBB = extrusion-based bioprinting; LBB = Laser-based bioprinting. (Modified from: Borovjagin AV, et al. Circ Res. 2017.20)