3D打印处理的聚合物树脂的生物相容性研究,用于制造短期3D培养设备

IF 2.3 4区 工程技术 Q2 INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION
João Paulo de Jesus Vieira, Saulo Soares da Silva, Ilva de Fátima Souza, Marcelo Bráulio Pedras, Bethânia Alves de Avelar Freitas, Libardo Andrés González Torres
{"title":"3D打印处理的聚合物树脂的生物相容性研究,用于制造短期3D培养设备","authors":"João Paulo de Jesus Vieira,&nbsp;Saulo Soares da Silva,&nbsp;Ilva de Fátima Souza,&nbsp;Marcelo Bráulio Pedras,&nbsp;Bethânia Alves de Avelar Freitas,&nbsp;Libardo Andrés González Torres","doi":"10.1007/s10404-025-02809-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The biocompatibility of materials and processes used in the fabrication of three-dimensional (3D) culture devices is crucial for the success of some relevant studies. In this context, 3D printing emerges as a promising technology to be used. This study evaluated three resins as candidates for the production of 3D culture devices: PriZma 3D Bio Splint (resin 1), 3D Prime Premium Cristal (resin 2), and Quanton Spin Skin Opaca (resin 3). Cubic samples of 2 mm and 3 mm were fabricated using a DLP 3D printer, followed by post-processing and sterilization. Biocompatibility was assessed using immortalized BSC-40 cells cultured in 96-well plates using MTT colorimetric assay to estimate cellular viability. A material is considered biocompatible if cell viability is above 70%. Resins 1 and 3 demonstrated high biocompatibility, with cell viability exceeding 80% and no significant differences between sample sizes. In contrast, the cell viability of resin 2 ranged from 60 to 66%. Based on these results, simplified devices for 3D cultures were produced with resin 1, due to its characteristics, particularly its transparency, which facilitates culture protocols and microscopic observations. After 4 days of culture, cells exhibited a three-dimensional morphology with long cellular projections and high viability when evaluated by fluorescence microscopy. We conclude that resins 1 is suitable for device fabrication, while resin 2 and 3 are not recommended because of the low biocompatibility and the opacity. respectively. The chosen materials show great potential for the production of devices for short term 3D cell cultures, an expanding and highly relevant area of scientific research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":706,"journal":{"name":"Microfluidics and Nanofluidics","volume":"29 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Study of the biocompatibility of polymeric resins processed by 3D printing for applications in manufacturing of devices for short term 3D cultures\",\"authors\":\"João Paulo de Jesus Vieira,&nbsp;Saulo Soares da Silva,&nbsp;Ilva de Fátima Souza,&nbsp;Marcelo Bráulio Pedras,&nbsp;Bethânia Alves de Avelar Freitas,&nbsp;Libardo Andrés González Torres\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10404-025-02809-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The biocompatibility of materials and processes used in the fabrication of three-dimensional (3D) culture devices is crucial for the success of some relevant studies. In this context, 3D printing emerges as a promising technology to be used. This study evaluated three resins as candidates for the production of 3D culture devices: PriZma 3D Bio Splint (resin 1), 3D Prime Premium Cristal (resin 2), and Quanton Spin Skin Opaca (resin 3). Cubic samples of 2 mm and 3 mm were fabricated using a DLP 3D printer, followed by post-processing and sterilization. Biocompatibility was assessed using immortalized BSC-40 cells cultured in 96-well plates using MTT colorimetric assay to estimate cellular viability. A material is considered biocompatible if cell viability is above 70%. Resins 1 and 3 demonstrated high biocompatibility, with cell viability exceeding 80% and no significant differences between sample sizes. In contrast, the cell viability of resin 2 ranged from 60 to 66%. Based on these results, simplified devices for 3D cultures were produced with resin 1, due to its characteristics, particularly its transparency, which facilitates culture protocols and microscopic observations. After 4 days of culture, cells exhibited a three-dimensional morphology with long cellular projections and high viability when evaluated by fluorescence microscopy. We conclude that resins 1 is suitable for device fabrication, while resin 2 and 3 are not recommended because of the low biocompatibility and the opacity. respectively. The chosen materials show great potential for the production of devices for short term 3D cell cultures, an expanding and highly relevant area of scientific research.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":706,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Microfluidics and Nanofluidics\",\"volume\":\"29 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Microfluidics and Nanofluidics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10404-025-02809-4\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microfluidics and Nanofluidics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10404-025-02809-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

制备三维(3D)培养装置所用材料和工艺的生物相容性对一些相关研究的成功至关重要。在这种背景下,3D打印成为一种有前途的技术。本研究评估了三种树脂作为生产3D培养装置的候选树脂:PriZma 3D Bio Splint(树脂1),3D Prime Premium crystal(树脂2)和Quanton Spin Skin Opaca(树脂3)。利用DLP 3D打印机制备2 mm和3 mm的立方样品,并进行后处理和灭菌。采用96孔板培养的永生化BSC-40细胞,采用MTT比色法评估细胞活力,评估生物相容性。如果细胞活力高于70%,则认为材料具有生物相容性。树脂1和树脂3表现出较高的生物相容性,细胞存活率超过80%,样品大小之间无显著差异。而树脂2的细胞存活率为60% ~ 66%。基于这些结果,利用树脂1的特性,特别是其透明度,便于培养方案和显微镜观察,制作了用于3D培养的简化装置。培养4天后,在荧光显微镜下观察,细胞呈现出三维形态,细胞突起长,活力高。我们的结论是树脂1适合于设备制造,而树脂2和3由于低生物相容性和不透明性而不推荐使用。分别。所选择的材料显示出生产短期3D细胞培养设备的巨大潜力,这是一个不断扩大和高度相关的科学研究领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Study of the biocompatibility of polymeric resins processed by 3D printing for applications in manufacturing of devices for short term 3D cultures

The biocompatibility of materials and processes used in the fabrication of three-dimensional (3D) culture devices is crucial for the success of some relevant studies. In this context, 3D printing emerges as a promising technology to be used. This study evaluated three resins as candidates for the production of 3D culture devices: PriZma 3D Bio Splint (resin 1), 3D Prime Premium Cristal (resin 2), and Quanton Spin Skin Opaca (resin 3). Cubic samples of 2 mm and 3 mm were fabricated using a DLP 3D printer, followed by post-processing and sterilization. Biocompatibility was assessed using immortalized BSC-40 cells cultured in 96-well plates using MTT colorimetric assay to estimate cellular viability. A material is considered biocompatible if cell viability is above 70%. Resins 1 and 3 demonstrated high biocompatibility, with cell viability exceeding 80% and no significant differences between sample sizes. In contrast, the cell viability of resin 2 ranged from 60 to 66%. Based on these results, simplified devices for 3D cultures were produced with resin 1, due to its characteristics, particularly its transparency, which facilitates culture protocols and microscopic observations. After 4 days of culture, cells exhibited a three-dimensional morphology with long cellular projections and high viability when evaluated by fluorescence microscopy. We conclude that resins 1 is suitable for device fabrication, while resin 2 and 3 are not recommended because of the low biocompatibility and the opacity. respectively. The chosen materials show great potential for the production of devices for short term 3D cell cultures, an expanding and highly relevant area of scientific research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Microfluidics and Nanofluidics
Microfluidics and Nanofluidics 工程技术-纳米科技
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.60%
发文量
97
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Microfluidics and Nanofluidics is an international peer-reviewed journal that aims to publish papers in all aspects of microfluidics, nanofluidics and lab-on-a-chip science and technology. The objectives of the journal are to (1) provide an overview of the current state of the research and development in microfluidics, nanofluidics and lab-on-a-chip devices, (2) improve the fundamental understanding of microfluidic and nanofluidic phenomena, and (3) discuss applications of microfluidics, nanofluidics and lab-on-a-chip devices. Topics covered in this journal include: 1.000 Fundamental principles of micro- and nanoscale phenomena like, flow, mass transport and reactions 3.000 Theoretical models and numerical simulation with experimental and/or analytical proof 4.000 Novel measurement & characterization technologies 5.000 Devices (actuators and sensors) 6.000 New unit-operations for dedicated microfluidic platforms 7.000 Lab-on-a-Chip applications 8.000 Microfabrication technologies and materials Please note, Microfluidics and Nanofluidics does not publish manuscripts studying pure microscale heat transfer since there are many journals that cover this field of research (Journal of Heat Transfer, Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, etc.).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信