3.8 Proceedings Paper

3D Printing of Biocompatible Scaffolds for Eye Tissue Engineering

Journal

V CIRP CONFERENCE ON BIOMANUFACTURING
Volume 110, Issue -, Pages 214-219

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.procir.2022.06.039

Keywords

ophthalmology; stereolithography; resin; biocompatibility

Funding

  1. Alessandro Nocivelli
  2. Angelo Nocivelli Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Eye tissue engineering is a promising field for studying and treating vitreoretinal diseases. Researchers have used 3D printing to create bowl-shaped samples and optimized the printing process to improve cell observation. Preliminary results showed the impact of different resin formulations on cell viability.
Eye tissue engineering is becoming a promising field in the study and treatment of vitreoretinal diseases, and novel hydrogels are under investigation for vitreous body replacement and 3D cell culture applications. In order to handle a not self-standing hydrogel and to provide it with eye shape, a rigid scaffold that is transparent, non-toxic, and easy to move is needed. To this purpose, we produced bowl-shaped samples by stereolithography (SLA) starting from different commercial transparent resins. We optimized the 3D printing protocol by tuning parameters such as exposure time, layer thickness, and light blocker content added to the resins. The specimens that showed the best dimensional accuracy were chosen to perform biocompatibility tests at different time-point and transparency tests under an optical microscope. Preliminary results showed that the cell culture medium conditioned by the first tested resin formulations caused a massive cell death in the MS5 cell line tested, whereas different formulations did not impact on cell viability. Furthermore, the as built resin samples did not allow cell observation under inverted microscope. It was demonstrated that post-processing progressive grinding remarkably improved cell visualization. (C) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available