Full text

Turn on search term navigation

1. Introduction

Human organs are highly specialized tissue structures performing particular distinctive functions. In the case of dysfunctional organs, clinical treatments are often limited by a scarcity of available donors and by immune rejection of donated tissue [1]. To overcome the lack of available transplantable organs, tissue-engineering approaches are used, which face some challenges [2]. Borrowing the concept of three-dimensional (3D) printing from additive manufacturing technologies, whereby a digital design for a 3D structure is fabricated layer by layer following the bottom-up approach, 3D bioprinting is now being pursued as a potential solution to some of the challenges faced in tissue-engineering methods [3,4,5,6,7,8]. Layer-by-layer precise positioning of biological materials, and biochemical and living cells, with spatial control of the placement of functional components, is used to fabricate 3D tissue structures [9].

A typical bioprinting process consists of three major steps, namely pre-processing, processing, and post-processing (Figure 1). Pre-processing involves imaging of the tissue or organ and the reconstruction of 3D models from the imaging (Figure 1a–d). Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) is widely used for rapid prototyping because of its simpler image-processing requirements. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), positron emission tomography (PET), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasonography (US) are other non-invasive imaging modalities [10]. The processing step involves the bioprinting process using an appropriate bioink [11,12,13,14] (Figure 1e–g). The bioprinting process can be classified into four different categories, including laser-based bioprinting [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23], droplet-based bioprinting [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31], extrusion-based bioprinting [28,29,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42], and stereolithography-based bioprinting [13,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50]. Post-processing involves maturation of the bioprinted tissue before its intended use [9,51] (Figure 1h–i).

2. Laser-Based Bioprinting

The main components of a laser-based bioprinter are the laser source, a laser transparent print ribbon coated with a layer of cell-laden bioink, and a substrate or collector slide on a motorized stage. The energy from the laser is utilized to pattern cell-laden bioinks in a three-dimensional spatial arrangement with the aid of computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM). The high resolution and reproducibility of this process makes it a viable option for use in biomedical applications [53]. Some of the variations of this method based on the type of laser source and laser transparent print ribbon are shown in Table 1. Stem-cell grafts, skin tissue, multicellular arrays, and biopapers were reported to be printed using this method [23,54]. The major advantage of laser printing is the non-contact process. This eliminates nozzle clogging and also results in high cell viabilities [55]. However, there are several disadvantages of laser-based bioprinting, which outweigh the advantages. Laser exposure on the cells is not without risk, and the use of metal to absorb the laser energy can induce cytotoxicity [53].

3. Droplet-Based Bioprinting

Such a process ejects cell-laden bioink out of the nozzle onto a substrate in the form of droplets [51]. Inkjet printers are one of the most commonly used type for both non-biological and biological applications [9]. Inkjet printers can use thermal [27] or acoustic [56] forces, among others, to eject drops of liquid onto a substrate [9], as seen in Table 2. One of the major advantages of droplet-based bioprinting is its compatibility with a wide variety of biological materials. Furthermore, such bioprinters provide high resolution (20–100 µm) and speed (1–10,000 droplets/s) while being a low-cost alternative [29]. For example, a high-throughput cell printing system was demonstrated for drug screening [30,57,58,59,60,61]. At the same time, a major drawback of this technique is the requirement for the biological material to be in a liquid and less viscous form [29], which may not always be the case.

4. Extrusion-Based Bioprinting

In extrusion-based bioprinting, the bioink is extruded out of the nozzle using pneumatic pressure or mechanical force. The biggest advantage of extrusion-based bioprinting is the scalability due to the continuous flow of bioink and large deposition rate (Table 3). At the same time, the resolution of this method is lower than other methods [62,63]. While the printability of high-viscosity bioinks and high cell concentrations is an advantage [37], the inherent nozzle-clogging problem is a disadvantage [64]. Due to their low cost and simple-to-use nature, extrusion-based bioprinters are the most widely used of all bioprinters [51] (Table 4). Cell-laden constructs with tunable 3D microenvironments were constructed by bioprinting gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA)/alginate core/sheath microfibers using extrusion-based bioprinting and subsequent ultraviolet (UV) cross-linking [40]. Further stabilization strategies in extrusion-based bioprinting were also reported, in order to successfully complete the printing of intact, accurate, and biologically relevant constructs with desirable properties [65].

5. Stereolithography-Based Bioprinting

In stereolithography-based bioprinters, UV light is used to cure layers of photopolymer, stacks of which form the 3D object (Table 3). The biggest advantage of stereolithography in general and stereolithography-based bioprinting in particular is its very high resolution. Other advantages include high cell concentrations and no problem of nozzle clogging. The preparation of three-dimensional biodegradable poly(ethylene glycol)/poly(d,l-lactide) hydrogel structures using stereolithography at high resolutions was shown [46]. Cell-encapsulated hydrogels were also shown to be 3D-printed using stereolithography [48]. Cell-attachable and visible-light cross-linkable bioinks, based on gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) with eosin Y (EY) photoinitiation, for stereolithography three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting were developed and used to print cell-laden hydrogels [13]. However, there are many disadvantages of this method. The biggest disadvantage is that only photocurable bioinks can be used. Another disadvantage is that the cells will get exposed to harmful UV light, which affects the cell viability [44].

6. 3D-Printed Tissues and Organs

Bioprinting was used to generate two-dimensional (2D) and 3D structures for various purposes, including fabrication of scaffolds and tissue constructs for tissue regeneration (Table 5). Some examples of printed tissues are shown in Figure 2. Markstedt et al. [66] printed shapes resembling human ear and sheep mensci using a bioink containing alginate and nanofibrillated cellulose and an inkjet-based 3D bioprinter which is largely applied for fibrous nanomaterials packaging [67]. Duan et al. [62] printed aortic valve conduits using hydrogel-based bioinks laden with aortic root sinus smooth-muscle cells and aortic valve leaflet interstitial cells and an extrusion-based 3D bioprinter. Table 5 summarizes the applications of 3D bioprinting in tissue engineering.

Therefore, it can be said that bioprinting holds tremendous potential and is fast moving toward fully functional 3D-printed organs. For example, in the future, chronic toxicological diseases that are majorly due to industrial particulate pollutants such as pulmonary fibrosis could be cured by transplanting 3D-printed lungs from patients’ own programmed cells. Life expectancy can be increased because patients will not be left waiting until a suitable organ is available from an organ donor. Body cells taken from patient blood or from a skin biopsy will be transported to a laboratory [87]. Here, cells will be programmed into routine culture to be transformed into diseased organ cells (e.g., lung cells) and will be expanded in volume/number for the 3D bioprinting to resemble a lung after a few weeks. After maturation into sterile culture conditions, the artificial lung will be ready to be implanted inside the patient (Figure 3) to replace the dysfunctional organ [88]. This whole process will take just a few months and will also produce personalized organs for the patient from their own cells. This will reduce the possibility of rejection by the body, and the patient will not have to spend the rest of his/her life on anti-rejection drugs and having to deal with all of the associated side effects. Petersen et al. [89] (Figure 3) proposed using scaffolds of extracellular matrix from lungs of adult rat that retain the hierarchical branching with cellular components removed. A bioreactor was used to culture pulmonary epithelium and vascular endothelium on the acellular lung matrix, resulting in hierarchical organization within the matrix and efficient repopulation of the vascular compartment. When implanted into rats in vivo for short time intervals (45 to 120 minutes) the engineered lungs participated in gas exchange, although the inflation of engineered lung was found to be less than that of the native lung, and some bleeding and clotting was observed. While this represents a step toward developing a viable strategy for generating fully functional lungs in vitro, there remains the issue of extracting scaffolds from lungs, among others. This is where 3D bioprinting can help by developing patient-specific, on-demand biological scaffolds.

The entire process involves nano- and micro-to macroscale bottom-up engineering [90,91] using a simple desktop 3D printer. This opens up the possibility that, one day, we will be able to bioprint amputated sub-organs, missing organs, and digitally designed cosmetic body parts. Instead of using plastics to print structures, researchers will use living cells mixed with biocompatible scaffolds to build living tissue inside a sterile safety cabinet to keep the cells protected from harmful foreign substances. In this context, it is also important to discuss the relevance of four-dimensional (4D) bioprinting, the fourth dimension being time [92]. While 3D bioprinting is set to make our lives easier by printing required living tissue on demand, in some cases, it may lose relevance if it is too time-consuming. Therefore, time taken to create the end-product is an important parameter to consider when judging the effectiveness of bioprinting processes. Furthermore, it was suggested that a universal bioink would be a significant technological advancement that could standardize the bioprinting field and accelerate the realization of human tissue product biomanufacturing [93]. With advancement in 3D printing, parallel advancements in 3D bioprinting can also be expected in the future. For example, dip-pen nanolithography is being developed, combining advantages of electron beam lithography, inkjet printing, and microcontact printing [94]. Such methods also allow the parallel application of different inks, which may be useful for printing complex tissue structures when integrated with in silico modeling [95,96].

7. Future Outlook: 3D Bioprinting Air–Liquid Interface (ALI) as an Artificial Material for Nanotoxicity Assessment of Particulate Matter

With the huge potential that 3D bioprinting holds, other applications apart from tissue/organ regeneration can be realized [97], for example, printing a lattice-like membrane, which can act as a biological tape. Such a membrane when placed in a culture microincubator could be used to recreate the microenvironment of the human body. To mimic the air–liquid interface in vivo, 3D bioprinting can build living lung-like tissues via printing the inside of the incredibly intricate branching network of tubes [98,99]. Each of these tubes ends in a tiny structure of air sacs/pouches where oxygen and carbon dioxide are exchanged, which gives an idea of just how complex this structure is. There are 300 million of these tiny air sacs in each lung [100], which makes it a very challenging structure to bioprint. However, a part of it can be printed to be used as a very useful model for toxicological research [101]. Another example is an asthma attack, where patients breathe in certain particulate allergens (micro- and nano- to macroscale particles/airborne spores) which aggravate muscle contraction of reduced-diameter airways [102]. In the future, starting from those airway muscle cells, one can recreate them in the lab and print them into tubular structures [103]. Further incubating these constructs in a suitable microenvironment to mature into similar functional airway muscles is possible via adding a stimulatory compound like histamine. It is released in asthmatic patient airways during an asthma attack, causing muscle contraction. We will be able to 3D print an airway muscle tissue mimicking the biological lifelike contraction and, thus, test advance therapeutics to reverse the contraction, relaxing the air tube as an anti-asthma drug does in patients. The fact that drug tests can be performed in these tissues is a very important point, because the drug development industry faces a big challenge of human trials after testing in vitro cells grown in petri dishes and preclinical tests in in vivo rodents. Rodents such as mice and rats respond very differently to test therapeutic compounds than humans do [104]. There is a huge chasm between the preclinical tools that we test the drugs on and the humans for whom the drugs are designed to help. Therefore, 90% of drugs that show promise in animals actually fail to work in humans, usually because they are just not effective at fighting disease or, sometimes, they are downright toxic [105]. These 3D-printed tissues can help the drug development process by enabling pharmaceutical companies to test these compounds in tissues that reproduce the complexity of the human body [106]. This will save lives by providing better drugs to patients faster and for less expense. It also has an ethical and moral impact, because research can drastically reduce the number of animals that are used for drug development. By the year 2050, it is estimated that the meat and leather industry combined will need around one hundred billion farm animals to supply us with our animal-based needs such as meat, leather, milk, etc. [107]. To supplement those kinds of needs, animal cells can now be grown in the laboratory in just the same way as human cells; thus, there is potential here to replace a large proportion of these animals using bioprinted cells. We can differentiate them into muscle-like cells and then print those cells into meat products. The first bioprinted beef burger was revealed back in 2013, although incurring high costs (approximately $300,000) [108]. As technology moves forward rapidly, bioprinted leather is also a potential use for this technology. Skin cells can be grown, and the industry could generate customized leather products with specific thicknesses or textures or colors, making it feasible for the potential replacement of animal products by even better bioprinted animal products [109].

Figure 1. A typical process for bioprinting 3D tissues. Imaging of the tissue or organ using (a) CT scanner (shown here is a Siemens SOMATOM Force © Siemens Healthcare GmbH, 2018), or (b) MRI machine (shown here is a Siemens MAGNETOM Sola © Siemens Healthcare GmbH, 2018) and (c,d) reconstruction of 3D models from the imaging (shown here are models of a near and a heart). (e) The composition of bioink depends on the intended tissue form and function. Using such inks, methods like (f) laser-based bioprinting, or (g) extrusion-based bioprinting can be employed to print the intended tissue. (h,i) Some form of post-processing or maturation may be needed before the 3-d bioprinted tissue can be used (shown here is the maturation of bioprinted tubes composed of porcine aortic smooth muscle cells in a perfusion bioreactor). 3D model of ear is reprinted from Mannoor et.al. [35], with permission from American Chemical Society; Bioink formulation schematic is taken from Gungor-Ozkerin et.al. [12], with permission from Royal Society of Chemistry; Schematic of laser-based bioprinting is taken from Guillemot et.al. [17], with permission from Elsevier; Schematic of extrusion-based bioprinting is taken from Mannoor et.al. [35], with permission from American Chemical Society; Post-processing images are taken from Norotte et.al. [52], with permission from Elsevier.

Figure 2. Examples of 3D-bioprinted tissue: (A) 3D-printed human ear and sheep menisci [66] (reprinted with permission from American Chemical Society Publications); (B) as-printed aortic valve conduit [62] (reprinted with permission from Wiley).

Figure 3. Scheme for lung tissue engineering [89]. (A) Native adult rat lung is cannulated in the pulmonary artery and trachea for infusion of decellularization solutions. (B) Acellular lung matrix is devoid of cells after 2 to 3 h of treatment. (C) Acellular matrix is mounted inside a biomimetic bioreactor that allows seeding of vascular endothelium into the pulmonary artery and pulmonary epithelium into the trachea. (D) After four to eight days of culture, the engineered lung is removed from the bioreactor and is suitable for implantation into (E) the syngeneic rat recipient. (Reprinted with permission from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)).

Laser-Based Bioprinting
Category Laser-Induced Forward Transfer (LFT) Absorbing Film-Assisted Laser-Induced Forward Transfer (AFA-LIFT) Biological Laser Processing (BioLP) Matrix-Assisted Pulsed Laser Evaporation Direct Writing (MAPLE-DW) Laser-Guided Direct Writing (LG DW)
DifferenceLaser transparent print ribbonWith thin metal layerWith thick metal layerWith biopolymer layer/
Laser pulsesHigh powerHigh powerHigh powerLow power/
CCD camera//Included//
Optical fiber////Included or not included
AdvantagesOverall

1. High cell viability

2. High resolution

3. High cell densities

4. Low-viscosity cell suspensions
Individual/Thick metal layer reducing the risk of laser energy on cells damageBiopolymer facilitating initial cell attachment/
Disadvantages

1. A risk of photonic cell damage

2. Scalability limitation

3. Fabrication of the laser print ribbon

4. High cost of laser system

5. Complexity of controlling the laser pulses

Droplet-based Bioprinting
Category Inkjet Bioprinting Electro-Hydrodynamic Jetting-Based Bioprinting Acoustic Bioprinting Microvalve Bioprinting
Continuous Inkjet Drop-on-Demand
Trigger DifferencePneumatic actuatorThermal, piezo-electric, electrostatic actuatorElectric fieldAcoustic actuatorPneumatic actuator
Advantages

1. High resolution

2. High printing speed

3. Affordability

4. Cell concentration gradient

1. High resolution

2. High-viscosity bioink

1. Without detrimental stressors

2. High resolution

3. High printing speed

1. Synchronized ejection from different print heads
Disadvantages

1. Low-viscosity bioink

2. Nozzle clogging

3. Droplets cannot be controlled precisely

1. Low-viscosity bioink

2. Nozzle clogging

1. Electric field might affect the long-term cell viability

2. Precise spatial placement of cells is onerous

1. Not too high a viscosity of bioink

2. Not too high a cell concentration

1. Nozzle clogging

2. Low resolution

3. Damage of cells

Category Extrusion-Based Bioprinting Stereolithography-Based Bioprinting
Trigger differencePneumatic pressure or mechanical forceLight (usually UV) irradiation
Advantages

1. Scalability

2. High-viscosity bioink

3. High cell concentration

1. Highest resolution

2. Reduced printing time
Disadvantages

1. Lowest resolution

2. Nozzle clogging

3. Shear-thinning bioink

1. Nozzle clogging

2. Photopolymerizable bioinks or bioinks containing UV-activated photo initiated damage of cells

3. UV irradiation damage of DNA and promotion of cell lysis

Properties Laser-Based Bioprinting Inkjet Bioprinting EHD Jetting-Based Bioprinting Acoustic Bioprinting Microvalve Bioprinting Extrusion-Based Bioprinting Stereolithography-Based Bioprinting
Bioink viscosity1–300 mPa·s3–12 mPa·s1–1000 mPa·sNA1–200 mPa·s~600 kPa·s~5 Pa·s
Cell density108 cells/mL106 cells/mL106 cells/mL106 cells/mL106 cells/mL108 cells/mL>106 cells/mL
Speed200–1600 mm/s10,000 droplets per second10–500 mm/s10,000 droplets per second1000 droplets per second10–50 μm/sHigh
Resolution50 μm50 μm100 nm37 μm–100 μm200 nm–6 μm
AccuracyHighMediumLowMediumMediumLowHigh
Cell viability>95%>80%>80%>90%>80%40–95%25–85%
Structural integrityLowLowHighLowLow–mediumHighMedium–high
ScalabilityLowHighHighMediumHighHighMedium–high
CostHighLowHighMedium–highMediumLow–mediumMedium

Tissue Techniques Cell Types Growth Factors Materials References
Heart valveExtrusion-based bioprintingAortic valve interstitial cell

Aortic root sinus smooth-muscle cell

–Hyaluronic acid

Gelatin

Alginate

[62,68]
Myocardial tissueExtrusion-based bioprintingCardiomyocyte progenitor cell–Alginate[69,70]
Blood vesselJetting-based bioprintingEndothelial cell

Smooth-muscle cell

Mesenchymal stem cell

–Fibrin[71,72]
Extrusion-based bioprintingEndothelial cell

Cardiac cell

Smooth-muscle cell

Fibroblast

–Collagen

Agarose

Alginate

[52,73,74]
Musculo-skeletal tissueJetting-based bioprintingMuscle-derived stem cells

Myoblast

Mesenchymal fibroblast

BMP-2

FGF-2

Fibrin[75,76,77]
Extrusion-based bioprintingBone marrow stromal cell

Endothelial progenitor cell

Endogenous stem cell

TGF-βAgarose

Alginate

Hydroxyapatite

Polycaprolactone

[78,79]
NerveJetting-based bioprintingEmbryonic motor neuron cell

Hippocampal cell

Cortical cell

Neuronal precursor cell

Neural stem cells

CNTF

VEGF

Soy agar

Collagen

Fibrin

[80,81]
Extrusion-based bioprintingBone-marrow stem cell

Schwann cells

–Agarose[82,83]
SkinJetting-based bioprintingDermal fibroblast

Epidermal keratinocyte

–Collagen[84]
Extrusion-based bioprintingEpitheleal progenitorsEGF BMP-4Gelatin[85]
BoneExtrusion-based bioprintingHuman mesenchymal stem cells–GelMA[86]

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

A.V.S. thanks the Max Planck Society for the grassroot project grant 2017 (M10335) and 2018 (M10338).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Rustad, K.C.; Sorkin, M.; Levi, B.; Longaker, M.T.; Gurtner, G.C. Strategies for organ level tissue engineering. Organogenesis 2010, 6, 151-157. [Green Version]

2. Atala, A.; Kasper, F.K.; Mikos, A.G. Engineering Complex Tissues. Sci. Transl. Med. 2012, 4, 160rv112.

3. Griffith, L.G.; Naughton, G. Tissue engineering--current challenges and expanding opportunities. Science 2002, 295, 1009.

4. Ikada, Y. Challenges in tissue engineering. J. R. Soc. Interface 2006, 3, 589-601. [Green Version]

5. Nigam, R.; Mahanta, B. An overview of various biomimetic scaffolds: Challenges and applications in tissue engineering. J. Tissue Sci. Eng. 2014, 5, 1.

6. Khademhosseini, A.; Langer, R. A decade of progress in tissue engineering. Nat. Protoc. 2016, 11, 1775.

7. Mironov, V.; Reis, N.; Derby, B. Review: Bioprinting: A beginning. Tissue Eng. 2006, 12, 631-634.

8. Seol, Y.-J.; Kang, H.-W.; Lee, S.J.; Atala, A.; Yoo, J.J. Bioprinting technology and its applications. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2014, 46, 342-348. [Green Version]

9. Murphy, S.V.; Atala, A. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014, 32, 773.

10. Rengier, F.; Mehndiratta, A.; von Tengg-Kobligk, H.; Zechmann, C.M.; Unterhinninghofen, R.; Kauczor, H.U.; Giesel, F.L. 3D printing based on imaging data: review of medical applications. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 2010, 5, 335-341.

11. Gopinathan, J.; Noh, I. Recent trends in bioinks for 3D printing. Biomater. Res. 2018, 22, 11. [Green Version]

12. Gungor-Ozkerim, P.S.; Inci, I.; Zhang, Y.S.; Khademhosseini, A.; Dokmeci, M.R. Bioinks for 3D bioprinting: an overview. Biomater. Sci. 2018, 6, 915-946. [Green Version]

13. Wang, Z.; Kumar, H.; Tian, Z.; Jin, X.; Holzman, J.F.; Menard, F.; Kim, K. Visible light photoinitiation of cell-adhesive gelatin methacryloyl hydrogels for stereolithography 3D bioprinting. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 26859-26869.

14. Bieligmeyer, M.; Artukovic, F.; Nussberger, S.; Hirth, T.; Schiestel, T.; Müller, M. Reconstitution of the membrane protein OmpF into biomimetic block copolymer-phospholipid hybrid membranes. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2016, 7, 881-892.

15. Guillotin, B.; Souquet, A.; Catros, S.; Duocastella, M.; Pippenger, B.; Bellance, S.; Bareille, R.; Rémy, M.; Bordenave, L.; Amédée, J.; et al. Laser assisted bioprinting of engineered tissue with high cell density and microscale organization. Biomaterials 2010, 31, 7250-7256.

16. Barron, J.A.; Wu, P.; Ladouceur, H.D.; Ringeisen, B.R. Biological laser printing: A novel technique for creating heterogeneous 3-dimensional cell patterns. BioMi 2004, 6, 139-147.

17. Guillemot, F.; Souquet, A.; Catros, S.; Guillotin, B.; Lopez, J.; Faucon, M.; Pippenger, B.; Bareille, R.; Rémy, M.; Bellance, S.; et al. High-throughput laser printing of cells and biomaterials for tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. 2010, 6, 2494-2500.

18. Zhang, X.; Zhang, Y. Tissue engineering applications of three-dimensional bioprinting. Cell Biochem. Biophys. 2015, 72, 777-782.

19. Ali, M.; Pages, E.; Ducom, A.; Fontaine, A.; Guillemot, F. Controlling laser-induced jet formation for bioprinting mesenchymal stem cells with high viability and high resolution. Biofabrication 2014, 6, 045001.

20. Koch, L.; Deiwick, A.; Franke, A.; Schwanke, K.; Haverich, A.; Zweigerdt, R.; Chichkov, B. Laser bioprinting of human induced pluripotent stem cells-the effect of printing and biomaterials on cell survival, pluripotency, and differentiation. Biofabrication 2018, 10, 035005. [Green Version]

21. Wang, Z.; Jin, X.; Tian, Z.; Menard, F.; Holzman, J.F.; Kim, K. A Novel, Well-resolved direct laser bioprinting system for rapid cell encapsulation and microwell fabrication. Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2018, 7, 1701249.

22. Petit, S.; Kérourédan, O.; Devillard, R.; Cormier, E. Femtosecond versus picosecond laser pulses for film-free laser bioprinting. Appl. Opt. 2017, 56, 8648-8655.

23. Koch, L.; Deiwick, A.; Chichkov, B. Laser-Based Cell Printing. In 3D Printing and Biofabrication; Springer, Cham: Basel, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 303-329.

24. Klebe, R.J. Cytoscribing: A method for micropositioning cells and the construction of two- and three-dimensional synthetic tissues. Exp. Cell Res. 1988, 179, 362-373.

25. Xu, T.; Zhao, W.; Zhu, J.-M.; Albanna, M.Z.; Yoo, J.J.; Atala, A. Complex heterogeneous tissue constructs containing multiple cell types prepared by inkjet printing technology. Biomaterials 2013, 34, 130-139.

26. Xu, T.; Jin, J.; Gregory, C.; Hickman, J.J.; Boland, T. Inkjet printing of viable mammalian cells. Biomaterials 2005, 26, 93-99.

27. Cui, X.; Bolond, T.; D'Lima, D.D.; Lotz, M.K. Thermal inkjet printing in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Recent Pat. Drug Deliv. Formul. 2012, 6, 149-155.

28. Sundaramurthi, D.; Rauf, S.; Hauser, C. 3D bioprinting technology for regenerative medicine applications. Int. J. Bioprinting 2016, 2, 9-26.

29. Dai, G.; Lee, V. Three-dimensional bioprinting and tissue fabrication: prospects for drug discovery and regenerative medicine. Adv. Health Care Technol. 2015, 1, 23-25.

30. Li, X.; Chen, J.; Liu, B.; Wang, X.; Ren, D.; Xu, T. Inkjet Printing for Biofabrication. In 3D Printing and Biofabrication. Reference Series in Biomedical Engineering; Ovsianikov, A., Yoo, J., Mironov, V., Eds.; Springer, Cham: Basel, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 1-19.

31. Hewes, S.; Wong, A.D.; Searson, P.C. Bioprinting microvessels using an inkjet printer. Bioprinting 2017, 7, 14-18.

32. Cohen, D.L.; Malone, E.; Lipson, H.; Bonassar, L.J. Direct freeform fabrication of seeded hydrogels in arbitrary geometries. Tissue Eng. 2006, 12, 1325-1335.

33. Iwami, K.; Noda, T.; Ishida, K.; Morishima, K.; Nakamura, M.; Umeda, N. Bio rapid prototyping by extruding/aspirating/refilling thermoreversible hydrogel. Biofabrication 2010, 2, 014108.

34. Shor, L.; Güçeri, S.; Chang, R.; Gordon, J.; Kang, Q.; Hartsock, L.; An, Y.; Sun, W. Precision extruding deposition (PED) fabrication of polycaprolactone (PCL) scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biofabrication 2009, 1, 015003.

35. Mannoor, M.S.; Jiang, Z.; James, T.; Kong, Y.L.; Malatesta, K.A.; Soboyejo, W.O.; Verma, N.; Gracias, D.H.; McAlpine, M.C. 3D printed bionic ears. Nano Lett. 2013, 13, 2634-2639.

36. Lee, V.K.; Dai, G. Printing of three-dimensional tissue analogs for regenerative medicine. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2017, 45, 115-131.

37. Panwar, A.; Tan, P.L. Current status of bioinks for micro-extrusion-based 3D bioprinting. Molecules 2016, 21, 685.

38. Lee, K.; Jin, G.; Jang, C.H.; Jung, W.-K.; Kim, G. Preparation and characterization of multi-layered poly(ε-caprolactone)/chitosan scaffolds fabricated with a combination of melt-plotting/in situ plasma treatment and a coating method for hard tissue regeneration. J. Mater. Chem. B 2013, 1, 5831-5841.

39. Hong, J.M.; Kim, B.J.; Shim, J.-H.; Kang, K.S.; Kim, K.-J.; Rhie, J.W.; Cha, H.J.; Cho, D.-W. Enhancement of bone regeneration through facile surface functionalization of solid freeform fabrication-based three-dimensional scaffolds using mussel adhesive proteins. Acta Biomater. 2012, 8, 2578-2586.

40. Liu, W.; Zhong, Z.; Hu, N.; Zhou, Y.; Maggio, L.; Miri, A.K.; Fragasso, A.; Jin, X.; Khademhosseini, A.; Zhang, Y.S. Coaxial extrusion bioprinting of 3D microfibrous constructs with cell-favorable gelatin methacryloyl microenvironments. Biofabrication 2018, 10, 024102. [Green Version]

41. Placone, J.K.; Engler, A.J. Recent advances in extrusion-based 3D printing for biomedical applications. Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2018, 7, 1701161.

42. Agarwala, S.; Lee, J.M.; Ng, W.L.; Layani, M.; Yeong, W.Y.; Magdassi, S. A novel 3D bioprinted flexible and biocompatible hydrogel bioelectronic platform. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2018, 102, 365-371.

43. Soman, P.; Chung, P.H.; Zhang, A.P.; Chen, S. Digital microfabrication of user-defined 3D microstructures in cell-laden hydrogels. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2013, 110, 3038-3047. [Green Version]

44. Arcaute, K.; Mann, B.K.; Wicker, R.B. Stereolithography of three-dimensional bioactive poly(ethylene glycol) constructs with encapsulated cells. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2006, 34, 1429-1441.

45. Curley, J.L.; Jennings, S.R.; Moore, M.J. Fabrication of micropatterned hydrogels for neural culture systems using dynamic mask projection photolithography. J. Vis. Exp. 2011, 48, 2636.

46. Elomaa, L.; Pan, C.-C.; Shanjani, Y.; Malkovskiy, A.; Seppälä, J.V.; Yang, Y. Three-dimensional fabrication of cell-laden biodegradable poly(ethylene glycol-co-depsipeptide) hydrogels by visible light stereolithography. J. Mater. Chem. B 2015, 3, 8348-8358. [Green Version]

47. Elomaa, L.; Teixeira, S.; Hakala, R.; Korhonen, H.; Grijpma, D.W.; Seppälä, J.V. Preparation of poly(ε-caprolactone)-based tissue engineering scaffolds by stereolithography. Acta Biomater. 2011, 7, 3850-3856.

48. Chan, V.; Zorlutuna, P.; Jeong, J.H.; Kong, H.; Bashir, R. Three-dimensional photopatterning of hydrogels using stereolithography for long-term cell encapsulation. Lab Chip. 2010, 10, 2062-2070.

49. Seck, T.M.; Melchels, F.P.W.; Feijen, J.; Grijpma, D.W. Designed biodegradable hydrogel structures prepared by stereolithography using poly(ethylene glycol)/poly(d,l-lactide)-based resins. J. Controlled Release 2010, 148, 34-41.

50. Miri, A.K.; Nieto, D.; Iglesias, L.; Goodarzi Hosseinabadi, H.; Maharjan, S.; Ruiz-Esparza, G.U.; Khoshakhlagh, P.; Manbachi, A.; Dokmeci, M.R.; Chen, S.; et al. Microfluidics-enabled multimaterial maskless stereolithographic bioprinting. Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1800242.

51. Vijayavenkataraman, S.; Yan, W.-C.; Lu, W.F.; Wang, C.-H.; Fuh, J.Y.H. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs for regenerative medicine. Adv. Drug Del. Rev. 2018, 132, 296-332.

52. Norotte, C.; Marga, F.S.; Niklason, L.E.; Forgacs, G. Scaffold-free vascular tissue engineering using bioprinting. Biomaterials 2009, 30, 5910-5917. [Green Version]

53. Schiele, N.R.; Corr, D.T.; Huang, Y.; Raof, N.A.; Xie, Y.; Chrisey, D.B. Laser-based direct-write techniques for cell printing. Biofabrication 2010, 2, 032001. [Green Version]

54. Kawecki, F.; Clafshenkel, W.P.; Auger, F.A.; Bourget, J.M.; Fradette, J.; Devillard, R. Self-assembled human osseous cell sheets as living biopapers for the laser-assisted bioprinting of human endothelial cells. Biofabrication 2018, 10, 035006. [Green Version]

55. Hopp, B.; Smausz, T.; Kresz, N.; Barna, N.; Bor, Z.; Kolozsvári, L.; Chrisey, D.B.; Szabó, A.; Nógrádi, A. Survival and proliferative ability of various living cell types after laser-induced forward transfer. Tissue Eng. 2005, 11, 1817-1823.

56. Okamoto, T.; Suzuki, T.; Yamamoto, N. Microarray fabrication with covalent attachment of DNA using Bubble Jet technology. Nat. Biotechnol. 2000, 18, 438.

57. Rodríguez-Dévora, J.I.; Zhang, B.; Reyna, D.; Shi, Z.-d.; Xu, T. High throughput miniature drug-screening platform using bioprinting technology. Biofabrication 2012, 4, 035001.

58. Matsusaki, M.; Sakaue, K.; Kadowaki, K.; Akashi, M. Three-Dimensional Human Tissue Chips Fabricated by Rapid and Automatic Inkjet Cell Printing. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2013, 2, 534-539.

59. Xu, F.; Celli, J.; Rizvi, I.; Moon, S.; Hasan, T.; Demirci, U. A three-dimensional in vitro ovarian cancer coculture model using a high-throughput cell patterning platform. Biotechnol. J. 2011, 6, 204-212. [Green Version]

60. Scoutaris, N.; Ross, S.; Douroumis, D. Current trends on medical and pharmaceutical applications of inkjet printing technology. Pharm. Res. 2016, 33, 1799-1816.

61. Gudapati, H.; Dey, M.; Ozbolat, I. A comprehensive review on droplet-based bioprinting: Past, present and future. Biomaterials 2016, 102, 20-42. [Green Version]

62. Duan, B.; Hockaday, L.A.; Kang, K.H.; Butcher, J.T. 3D Bioprinting of heterogeneous aortic valve conduits with alginate/gelatin hydrogels. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2013, 101, 1255-1264.

63. Dababneh, A.B.; Ozbolat, I.T. Bioprinting technology: A current state-of-the-art review. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2014, 136, 061016.

64. Malda, J.; Visser, J.; Melchels, F.P.; Jüngst, T.; Hennink, W.E.; Dhert, W.J.A.; Groll, J.; Hutmacher, D.W. 25th Anniversary article: Engineering hydrogels for biofabrication. Adv. Mater. 2013, 25, 5011-5028.

65. Shapira, A.; Noor, N.; Asulin, M.; Dvir, T. Stabilization strategies in extrusion-based 3D bioprinting for tissue engineering. Appl. Phys. Rev. 2018, 5, 041112.

66. Markstedt, K.; Mantas, A.; Tournier, I.; Martínez Ávila, H.; Hägg, D.; Gatenholm, P. 3D bioprinting human chondrocytes with nanocellulose-alginate bioink for cartilage tissue engineering applications. Biomacromolecules 2015, 16, 1489-1496.

67. Dwivedi, C.; Pandey, I.; Misra, V.; Giulbudagian, M.; Jungnickel, H.; Laux, P.; Luch, A.; Ramteke, P.W.; Vikram Singh, A. The prospective role of nanobiotechnology in food and food packaging products. Integr. Food Nutr. Metab. 2018, 5, 1-5.

68. Duan, B.; Kapetanovic, E.; Hockaday, L.A.; Butcher, J.T. Three-dimensional printed trileaflet valve conduits using biological hydrogels and human valve interstitial cells. Acta Biomater. 2014, 10, 1836-1846. [Green Version]

69. Duan, B. State-of-the-art review of 3D bioprinting for cardiovascular tissue engineering. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2017, 45, 195-209.

70. Gaetani, R.; Doevendans, P.A.; Metz, C.H.G.; Alblas, J.; Messina, E.; Giacomello, A.; Sluijter, J.P.G. Cardiac tissue engineering using tissue printing technology and human cardiac progenitor cells. Biomaterials 2012, 33, 1782-1790.

71. Gaebel, R.; Ma, N.; Liu, J.; Guan, J.; Koch, L.; Klopsch, C.; Gruene, M.; Toelk, A.; Wang, W.; Mark, P.; et al. Patterning human stem cells and endothelial cells with laser printing for cardiac regeneration. Biomaterials 2011, 32, 9218-9230.

72. Wu, P.K.; Ringeisen, B.R. Development of human umbilical vein endothelial cell (HUVEC) and human umbilical vein smooth muscle cell (HUVSMC) branch/stem structures on hydrogel layers via biological laser printing (BioLP). Biofabrication 2010, 2, 014111.

73. Cui, X.; Boland, T. Human microvasculature fabrication using thermal inkjet printing technology. Biomaterials 2009, 30, 6221-6227.

74. Jakab, K.; Norotte, C.; Damon, B.; Marga, F.; Neagu, A.; Besch-Williford, C.L.; Kachurin, A.; Church, K.H.; Park, H.; Mironov, V.; et al. Tissue engineering by self-assembly of cells printed into topologically defined structures. Tissue Eng. Part A 2008, 14, 413-421.

75. Phillippi, J.A.; Miller, E.; Weiss, L.; Huard, J.; Waggoner, A.; Campbell, P. Microenvironments Engineered by Inkjet Bioprinting Spatially Direct Adult Stem Cells Toward Muscle- and Bone-Like Subpopulations. Stem Cells 2008, 26, 127-134. [Green Version]

76. Ker, E.D.F.; Nain, A.S.; Weiss, L.E.; Wang, J.; Suhan, J.; Amon, C.H.; Campbell, P.G. Bioprinting of growth factors onto aligned sub-micron fibrous scaffolds for simultaneous control of cell differentiation and alignment. Biomaterials 2011, 32, 8097-8107.

77. Dwivedi, C.; Pandey, I.; Pandey, H.; Patil, S.; Mishra, S.B.; Pandey, A.C.; Zamboni, P.; Ramteke, P.W.; Singh, A.V. In vivo diabetic wound healing with nanofibrous scaffolds modified with gentamicin and recombinant human epidermal growth factor. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2018, 106, 641-651.

78. Lee, C.H.; Cook, J.L.; Mendelson, A.; Moioli, E.K.; Yao, H.; Mao, J.J. Regeneration of the articular surface of the rabbit synovial joint by cell homing: a proof of concept study. Lancet 2010, 376, 440-448. [Green Version]

79. Fedorovich, N.E.; De Wijn, J.R.; Verbout, A.J.; Alblas, J.; Dhert, W.J.A. Three-dimensional fiber deposition of cell-laden, ciable, patterned constructs for bone tissue printing. Tissue Eng. Part A 2008, 14, 127-133.

80. Xu, T.; Gregory, C.A.; Molnar, P.; Cui, X.; Jalota, S.; Bhaduri, S.B.; Boland, T. Viability and electrophysiology of neural cell structures generated by the inkjet printing method. Biomaterials 2006, 27, 3580-3588.

81. Ilkhanizadeh, S.; Teixeira, A.I.; Hermanson, O. Inkjet printing of macromolecules on hydrogels to steer neural stem cell differentiation. Biomaterials 2007, 28, 3936-3943.

82. Marga, F.; Jakab, K.; Khatiwala, C.; Shepherd, B.; Dorfman, S.; Hubbard, B.; Colbert, S.; Gabor, F. Toward engineering functional organ modules by additive manufacturing. Biofabrication 2012, 4, 022001.

83. Hsu, S.-H. 3D bioprinting: A new insight into the therapeutic strategy of neural tissue regeneration AU - Hsieh, Fu-Yu. Organogenesis 2015, 11, 153-158.

84. Lee, W.; Debasitis, J.C.; Lee, V.K.; Lee, J.-H.; Fischer, K.; Edminster, K.; Park, J.-K.; Yoo, S.-S. Multi-layered culture of human skin fibroblasts and keratinocytes through three-dimensional freeform fabrication. Biomaterials 2009, 30, 1587-1595.

85. Huang, S.; Yao, B.; Xie, J.; Fu, X. 3D bioprinted extracellular matrix mimics facilitate directed differentiation of epithelial progenitors for sweat gland regeneration. Acta Biomater. 2016, 32, 170-177.

86. Byambaa, B.; Annabi, N.; Yue, K.; Trujillo-de Santiago, G.; Alvarez, M.M.; Jia, W.; Kazemzadeh-Narbat, M.; Shin, S.R.; Tamayol, A.; Khademhosseini, A. Bioprinted osteogenic and vasculogenic patterns for engineering 3D bone tissue. Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2017, 6, 1700015.

87. Singh, A.V.; Gailite, L.; Vyas, V.; Lenardi, C.; Forti, S.; Matteoli, M.; Milani, P. Rapid prototyping of nano- and micro-patterned substrates for the control of cell neuritogenesis by topographic and chemical cues. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2011, 31, 892-899.

88. Singh, A.V.; Lenardi, C.; Gailite, L.; Gianfelice, A.; Milani, P. A simple lift-off-based patterning method for micro- and nanostructuring of functional substrates for cell culture. J. Micromech. Microeng. 2009, 19, 115028.

89. Petersen, T.H.; Calle, E.A.; Zhao, L.; Lee, E.J.; Gui, L.; Raredon, M.B.; Gavrilov, K.; Yi, T.; Zhuang, Z.W.; Breuer, C.; et al. Tissue-engineered lungs for in vivo implantation. Science 2010, 329, 538-541.

90. Singh, A.V.; Ferri, M.; Tamplenizza, M.; Borghi, F.; Divitini, G.; Ducati, C.; Lenardi, C.; Piazzoni, C.; Merlini, M.; Podestà, A.; et al. Bottom-up engineering of the surface roughness of nanostructured cubic zirconia to control cell adhesion. Nanotechnology 2012, 23, 475101.

91. Ajay, V.S.; Krunal, K.M. Top-down versus bottom-up nanoengineering routes to design advanced oropharmacological products. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2016, 22, 1534-1545.

92. Miao, S.; Castro, N.; Nowicki, M.; Xia, L.; Cui, H.; Zhou, X.; Zhu, W.; Lee, S.-j.; Sarkar, K.; Vozzi, G.; et al. 4D printing of polymeric materials for tissue and organ regeneration. Mater. Today 2017, 20, 577-591.

93. Skardal, A. Perspective: "Universal" bioink technology for advancing extrusion bioprinting-based biomanufacturing. Bioprinting 2018, 10, e00026.

94. Hirtz, M.; Oikonomou, A.; Georgiou, T.; Fuchs, H.; Vijayaraghavan, A. Multiplexed biomimetic lipid membranes on graphene by dip-pen nanolithography. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 2591.

95. Singh, A.V.; Jahnke, T.; Kishore, V.; Park, B.-W.; Batuwangala, M.; Bill, J.; Sitti, M. Cancer cells biomineralize ionic gold into nanoparticles-microplates via secreting defense proteins with specific gold-binding peptides. Acta Biomater. 2018, 71, 61-71.

96. Singh, A.V.; Jahnke, T.; Wang, S.; Xiao, Y.; Alapan, Y.; Kharratian, S.; Onbasli, M.C.; Kozielski, K.; David, H.; Richter, G.; et al. Anisotropic gold nanostructures: Optimization via in silico modeling for hyperthermia. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2018, 1, 6205-6216.

97. Ozbolat, I.T.; Peng, W.; Ozbolat, V. Application areas of 3D bioprinting. Drug Discov. Today 2016, 21, 1257-1271. [Green Version]

98. Horváth, L.; Umehara, Y.; Jud, C.; Blank, F.; Petri-Fink, A.; Rothen-Rutishauser, B. Engineering an in vitro air-blood barrier by 3D bioprinting. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 7974. [Green Version]

99. Meeta, G.; Ajay, V.S. Nanoparticle enabled drug delivery across the blood brain barrier: in vivo and in vitro models, opportunities and challenges. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2013, 14, 1201-1212.

100. Ochs, M.; Nyengaard, J.R.; Jung, A.; Knudsen, L.; Voigt, M.; Wahlers, T.; Richter, J.; Gundersen, H.J.G. The number of alveoli in the human lung. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2004, 169, 120-124.

101. Singh, A.V.; Laux, P.; Luch, A.; Sudrik, C.; Wiehr, S.; Wild, A.-M.; Santomauro, G.; Bill, J.; Sitti, M. Review of emerging concepts in nanotoxicology: opportunities and challenges for safer nanomaterial design. Toxicol. Mech. Methods 2019, 14, 1-10.

102. Holgate, S.T. The epidemic of allergy and asthma. Nature 1999, 402, 2.

103. Singh, A.V.; Patil, R.; Thombre, D.K.; Gade, W.N. Micro-nanopatterning as tool to study the role of physicochemical properties on cell-surface interactions. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2013, 101, 3019-3032.

104. Ajay Vikram, S. Editorial (Thematic Issue: Recent Trends in Nano-Biotechnology Reinforcing Contemporary Pharmaceutical Design). Curr. Pharm. Des. 2016, 22, 1415-1417.

105. Bracken, M.B. Why animal studies are often poor predictors of human reactions to exposure. J. R. Soc. Med. 2009, 102, 120-122. [Green Version]

106. Vikram Singh, A.; Gharat, T.; Batuwangala, M.; Park, B.-W.; Endlein, T.; Sitti, M. Three-dimensional patterning in biomedicine: Importance and applications in neuropharmacology. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2018, 106, 1369-1382.

107. Koneswaran, G.; Nierenberg, D. Global farm animal production and global warming: impacting and mitigating climate change. Environ. Health Perspect. 2008, 116, 578-582.

108. Building a $325,000 Burger. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/science/engineering-the-325000-in-vitro-burger.html (accessed on 30 January 2019).

109. Singh, A.V.; Gemmati, D.; Kanase, A.; Pandey, I.; Misra, V.; Kishore, V.; Jahnke, T.; Bill, J. Nanobiomaterials for vascular biology and wound management: A review. Veins Lymphat. 2018, 7.

1Department of Chemical and Product Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Strasse 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany

2Physical Intelligence Department, Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany

3Institut für Biomaterialien und biomolekulare Systeme Universität Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 57, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany

4CSIR-Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, 31 Vishvigyan Bhawan, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226001, India

5Department of Biotechnology, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune 411007, India

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Word count: 6230

Show less

© 2019. This work is licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

Borrowing the concept of three-dimensional (3D) printing from additive manufacturing technologies, whereby a digital design for a 3D structure is fabricated layer by layer following the bottom-up approach, 3D bioprinting is now being pursued as a potential solution to some of the challenges faced in tissue-engineering methods [3,4,5,6,7,8]. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), positron emission tomography (PET), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasonography (US) are other non-invasive imaging modalities [10]. Table 5 summarizes the applications of 3D bioprinting in tissue engineering. [...]it can be said that bioprinting holds tremendous potential and is fast moving toward fully functional 3D-printed organs. While 3D bioprinting is set to make our lives easier by printing required living tissue on demand, in some cases, it may lose relevance if it is too time-consuming. [...]time taken to create the end-product is an important parameter to consider when judging the effectiveness of bioprinting processes.

Details

Title
The Adoption of Three-Dimensional Additive Manufacturing from Biomedical Material Design to 3D Organ Printing
Author
Ajay Vikram Singh; Mohammad Hasan Dad Ansari; Wang, Shuo; Laux, Peter; Luch, Andreas; Kumar, Amit; Patil, Rajendra; Nussberger, Stephan
Publication year
2019
Publication date
2019
Publisher
MDPI AG
e-ISSN
20763417
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/app9040811
ProQuest document ID
2331359956
Copyright
© 2019. This work is licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.