Optimization of 3D Printing Parameters of Polylactic-Co-Glycolic Acid-Based Biodegradable Antibacterial Materials Using Fused Deposition Modeling
Source abstract
Abstract
A high incidence of ureteral diseases was needed to find better treatments such as implanting ureteral stents. The existing ureteral stents produced a series of complications such as bacterial infection and biofilm after implantation. The fused deposition modeling (FDM) of 3D printing biodegradable antibacterial ureteral stents had gradually become the trend of clinical treatment. But it was necessary to optimize the FDM 3D printing parameters of biodegradable bacteriostatic materials to improve the precision and performance of manufacturing. In this study, polylactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA), polycaprolactone (PCL), and nanosilver (AgNP) were mixed by the physical blending method, and the 3D printing parameters and properties were studied. The relationship between printing parameters and printing errors was obtained by single-factor variable method and linear fitting. The performance of 3D printing samples was obtained through infrared spectrum detection, molecular weight detection, and mechanical testing. The printing temperature and the printing pressure were proportional to the printing error, and the printing speed was inversely proportional to the printing error. The 3D printing has little effect on the functional groups and molecular weights of biodegradable antibacterial materials. The addition of AgNP increases the compressive strength and breaking strength by 8.332% and 37.726%, which provided ideas for regulating the mechanical properties. The parameter range of biodegradable bacteriostatic materials for thermal melting 3D printing was precisely established by optimizing the parameters of printing temperature, printing pressure, and printing speed, which would be further applied to the advanced manufacturing of biodegradable implant interventional medical devices.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Key Laboratory of Biomechanics and Mechanobiology (Beihang University), Ministry of Education, Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Biomedical Engineering, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.
School of Engineering Medicine, Beihang University, Beijing, China.
References (66)
Show source-provided references
1. An G, , Zhang WB, , Ma DK, et al. Influence of VEGF/BMP-2 on the proliferation and osteogenetic differentiation of rat bone mesenchymal stem cells on PLGA/gelatin composite scaffold. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, 2017; 21(10):2316–2328.
2. 10.1166/jnn.2015.1074710.1166/jnn.2015.10747 ↗
3. Fuding B, , Huifeng W, , Nan Z, et al. The feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the preemptive indwelling of double-J stents in percutaneous nephrolithotomy surgery: A randomized controlled trial. Urol J, 2020; 217(3):232–236; doi: 10.22037/uj.v0i0.4957
4. 10.1155/2018/494321010.1155/2018/4943210 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2018.08.01910.1016/j.jbiotec.2018.08.019 ↗
6. 10.1177/088532821879283910.1177/0885328218792839 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.11.03410.1016/j.compositesb.2016.11.034 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.powtec.2017.12.05810.1016/j.powtec.2017.12.058 ↗
9. Vitale M, , Cotteleer M, , Holdowsky J. An Overview of Additive Manufacturing. Defense AT&L, 2016; pp. 6–13.
10. 10.3390/polym1309149910.3390/polym13091499 ↗
11. 10.1007/s11095-018-2454-x10.1007/s11095-018-2454-x ↗
12. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.09.02710.1016/j.carbpol.2018.09.027 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.33510.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.335 ↗
14. 10.1002/app.5190410.1002/app.51904 ↗
15. Belaid H, , Nagarajan S, , Teyssier C, et al. Development of new biocompatible 3D printed graphene oxide-based scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C, 2019; 110(1–22):110595; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.110595
16. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.890.11310.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.890.113 ↗
17. 10.1002/app.4470310.1002/app.44703 ↗
18. 10.1080/03639045.2019.171138910.1080/03639045.2019.1711389 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.jddst.2022.10343210.1016/j.jddst.2022.103432 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.10357610.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103576 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.08.08810.1016/j.compstruct.2017.08.088 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.matdes.2016.04.04510.1016/j.matdes.2016.04.045 ↗
23. 10.1088/1757-899X/62/1/01201810.1088/1757-899X/62/1/012018 ↗
24. 10.3390/app706057910.3390/app7060579 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.measurement.2015.12.01110.1016/j.measurement.2015.12.011 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.synthmet.2017.01.00910.1016/j.synthmet.2017.01.009 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.02.03810.1016/j.matdes.2014.02.038 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.08310.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.083 ↗
29. Eynde MV, , Puyvelde PV. 3D printing of poly (lactic acid). Industrial applications of poly (lactic acid). Adv Polym Sci, 2017:139–158; doi: 10.1007/12_2017_28
30. 10.3390/colloids302004310.3390/colloids3020043 ↗
31. 10.1088/1758-5090/aa637010.1088/1758-5090/aa6370 ↗
32. 10.1108/RPJ-04-2012-003710.1108/RPJ-04-2012-0037 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.msec.2018.10.07710.1016/j.msec.2018.10.077 ↗
34. 10.3390/polym1207152910.3390/polym12071529 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.promfg.2021.07.03810.1016/j.promfg.2021.07.038 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.124610.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.1246 ↗
37. 10.1088/1757-899X/749/1/01201510.1088/1757-899X/749/1/012015 ↗
38. 10.1007/s00170-019-03299-910.1007/s00170-019-03299-9 ↗
39. 10.1089/3dp.2015.003610.1089/3dp.2015.0036 ↗
40. 10.1515/polyeng-2016-026310.1515/polyeng-2016-0263 ↗
41. 10.1007/s11340-018-00467-y10.1007/s11340-018-00467-y ↗
42. 10.3311/PPme.1368310.3311/PPme.13683 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.10592410.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.105924 ↗
44. 10.1179/1743284715Y.000000001010.1179/1743284715Y.0000000010 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.04.02910.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.04.029 ↗
46. 10.1108/RPJ-09-2014-013510.1108/RPJ-09-2014-0135 ↗
47. 10.1108/RPJ-03-2020-004310.1108/RPJ-03-2020-0043 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.06510.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.065 ↗
49. 10.1016/S0142-9418(01)00107-610.1016/S0142-9418(01)00107-6 ↗
50. 10.1021/acsabm.0c0137910.1021/acsabm.0c01379 ↗
51. 10.1021/acs.biomac.7b0067110.1021/acs.biomac.7b00671 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.06.01310.1016/j.compositesb.2015.06.013 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.matdes.2016.02.01810.1016/j.matdes.2016.02.018 ↗
54. 10.3390/jcs101000710.3390/jcs1010007 ↗
55. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2015.02.00910.1016/j.ijpharm.2015.02.009 ↗
56. 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b0002610.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b00026 ↗
57. 10.1002/app.4336110.1002/app.43361 ↗
58. 10.1007/s00170-019-03332-x10.1007/s00170-019-03332-x ↗
59. 10.1016/j.addma.2017.11.00210.1016/j.addma.2017.11.002 ↗
60. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.10.05510.1016/j.compstruct.2017.10.055 ↗
61. 10.1177/095440622097166710.1177/0954406220971667 ↗
62. 10.1016/j.matpr.2018.10.13810.1016/j.matpr.2018.10.138 ↗
63. Alsoufi MS, , Elsayed AE. Surface roughness quality and dimensional accuracy—A comprehensive analysis of 100% infill printed parts fabricated by a personal/desktop cost-effective FDM 3D printer. Mater Sci Appl, 2018; 9(01):11–41; doi: 10.4236/msa.2018.91002
64. 10.1016/S0300-5712(03)00091-510.1016/S0300-5712(03)00091-5 ↗
65. 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2012.02.01110.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2012.02.011 ↗
66. 10.1016/j.procs.2020.03.43410.1016/j.procs.2020.03.434 ↗