Bioprinting · Extrusion · 2023 · Applied Sciences (MDPI)
Design and Implementation of an Accessible 3D Bioprinter: Benchmarking the Performance of a Home-Made Bioprinter against a Professional Bioprinter
The tremendous application potential of 3D bioprinting in the biomedical field is witnessed by the ever-increasing interest in this technology over the past few years. In particular, the possibility of obtaining 3D cellular models that mimic tissues with precision and reproducibility represents a definitive advance for in vitro studies dealing with the biological mechanisms of cell growth, death and proliferation and is at the basis of the responses of healthy and pathological tissues to drugs and therapies.
Performance the paper reports
2 of 5- Motion1300 µmMotion accuracy: reported
- Volume—Volumetric accuracy: not reported
- Viability87%Cell viability: reported
- Unattended—Unattended operation: not reported
- Standard—Standard compliance: not reported
- Motion / positional accuracy1300 µm
Printer Testing To evaluate the precision and accuracy of the printer (repeatability and fidelity to a specified CAD model, respectively), three Cellink Start hydrogel rectilinear line patterns consisting of five segments with varying distance
- Cell viability87%
The cell viability was recovered for both cell lines to 87% (DAOY) and 91% (HUVEC), respectively, 72 h after printing (Figure 6).
How hard this is to adopt
3.4 of 5, higher is easierEach score is shown against the range the other 59 builds actually occupy, because no criterion uses the full 1–5 scale. These describe how reproducible the build is, not how good the science is.
Resolution
3/1–5Smallest feature/positioning evidence about 150 µm.
Throughput
3/2–5Throughput not explicit; assigned moderate default.
Parts sourcing
3/2–4Mix of common parts and custom/printed components.
Skill needed
4/2–4Build/operation described as low-skill or basic assembly.
Facilities needed
3/2–4Requires accessible but nontrivial lab/maker equipment.
Documentation
3/2–5Some open documentation or files are available.
Validation effort
4/2–4Validation includes standards, benchmarking, replicates, or multi-condition tests.
Cycle time
4/1–4Speed evidence suggests rapid, real-time, or automated operation.
2 further criteria are recorded but not shown
- Application Level — scored 3 (75% of records share one value), so it cannot separate one build from another.
- Build Time (scored for only 6 of 60 records), so it cannot separate one build from another.
Both remain in the published dataset.
Have you built this?
Report what it took, including attempts that stalled. A failed build tells the next laboratory what the documentation leaves out.
Know what this record is missing?
The index has no cost, licence on the design files, link to the design files or which files exist (CAD, bill of materials, firmware…) for this build. If you are an author or have built it, you know; a GitHub issue pre-filled with this record takes a minute.
Record metadata
Publication data
Matched by title · retrieved 2026-07-21
Abstract
The tremendous application potential of 3D bioprinting in the biomedical field is witnessed by the ever-increasing interest in this technology over the past few years. In particular, the possibility of obtaining 3D cellular models that mimic tissues with precision and reproducibility represents a definitive advance for in vitro studies dealing with the biological mechanisms of cell growth, death and proliferation and is at the basis of the responses of healthy and pathological tissues to drugs and therapies. However, the impact of 3D bioprinting on research is limited by the high costs of professional 3D bioprinters, which represent an obstacle to the widespread access and usability of this technology. In this work, we present a 3D bioprinter that was developed in-house by modifying a low-cost commercial 3D printer by replacing the default extruder used to print plastic filaments with a custom-made syringe extruder that is suitable for printing bioinks. The modifications made to the 3D printer include adjusting the size of the extruder to accommodate a 1 mL syringe and reducing the extruder’s size above the printer. To validate the performance of the home-made bioprinter, some main printing characteristics, the cell vitality and the possibility of bioprinting CAD-designed constructs were benchmarked against a renowned professional 3D bioprinter by RegenHu. According to our findings, our in-house 3D bioprinter was mostly successful in printing a complex glioblastoma tumor model with good performances, and it managed to maintain a cell viability that was comparable to that achieved by a professional bioprinter. This suggests that an accessible open-source 3D bioprinter could be a viable option for research and development (R&D) laboratories interested in pre-commercial 3D bioprinting advancements.
Bibliographic details
Access and metrics
Topics and keywords
Funding
- internal ENEA “Proof of Concept” (PoC) program · POR-FESR 2014–2020
- MAIA—Materiali Avanzati in una Infrastruttura Aperta · POR-FESR 2014–2020
Perspective and practical signals
Why it matters
If files are shared, this is a solid ‘DIY vs commercial’ benchmarking reference.
Limitations
No limitation note curated yet.