Search for: All records

Abstract A direct and comprehensive comparative study on different 3D printing modalities was performed. We employed two representative 3D printing modalities, laser‐ and extrusion‐based, which are currently used to produce patient‐specific medical implants for clinical translation, to assess how these two different 3D printing modalities affect printing outcomes. The same solid and porous constructs were created from the same biomaterial, a blend of 96% poly‐ε‐caprolactone (PCL) and 4% hydroxyapatite (HA), using two different 3D printing modalities. Constructs were analyzed to assess their printing characteristics, including morphological, mechanical, and biological properties. We also performed an in vitro accelerated degradation study to compare their degradation behaviors. Despite the same input material, the 3D constructs created from different 3D printing modalities showed distinct differences in morphology, surface roughness and internal void fraction, which resulted in different mechanical properties and cell responses. In addition, the constructs exhibited different degradation rates depending on the 3D printing modalities. Given that each 3D printing modality has inherent characteristics that impact printing outcomes and ultimately implant performance, understanding the characteristics is crucial in selecting the 3D printing modality to create reliable biomedical implants.