TABLE 3.
Comparison between inkjet, laser-assisted, and microextrusion bioprinting techniques.
| Inkjet | LAB | Microextrusion | Ref | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cell viability | High (>85%) | High (>95%) | Low to moderate (40–80%) | (Gao et al., 2014, 2015; Duarte Campos et al., 2016; Mandrycky et al., 2016) |
| Supported viscosity | Low viscosities (3.5–12 mPa.s) | Low to moderate viscosities (1–300 mPa.s) | Wide range of viscosities (30 mPa.s to over 6 × 107 mPa.s) | (Chang et al., 2011; Mandrycky et al., 2016) |
| Printing resolution | High | High | Moderate | (Mandrycky et al., 2016; Ashammakhi et al., 2019) |
| Strengths | • Low-cost operation • High cell viability • Fast printing |
• High resolution • Fast printing • High cell viability • Precise fabrication • Possibility of in-situ bioprinting • Given that it is a nozzle-free technique, it can avoid cell clogging |
• Prints a wide spectrum of biomaterials • Prints high cell densities |
(Mandrycky et al., 2016; Keriquel et al., 2017; Chen, 2018) |
| Limitations | • Lack of precision regarding droplet size and shape • Biomaterials that are not heat or mechanically resistant may be comprised • Cell damage at 15–25 kHz frequencies |
• Time-consuming process of ribbon preparation • Metallic residuals in the final scaffold • High production cost |
• Shear stress during printing affects cell viability • Low printing speed • Moderate resolution • Low to moderate cell viability |
(Mandrycky et al., 2016; Fu et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021) |