3D biomimetic scaffold’s dimensional accuracy: a crucial geometrical response for bone tissue engineering

Siddhant Gade; Shashikant Vagge

doi:10.1515/ijmr-2022-0267

Article

3D biomimetic scaffold’s dimensional accuracy: a crucial geometrical response for bone tissue engineering

Siddhant Gade and Shashikant Vagge

Published/Copyright: October 30, 2023

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Author Information

From the journal International Journal of Materials Research Volume 114 Issue 10-11

Abstract

Additive manufacturing has emerged as a trending methodology for producing different simple to complex geometries in minimum lead time, which in turn gives better quality attributes when compared to conventional manufacturing procedures. Fabrication of polylactic acid-based porous scaffold prototypes by 3-dimensional printing has been extensively performed successfully by many researchers. The dimensional accuracy of the 3-dimensional printed part is a very crucial aspect of bone tissue engineering. Dimensional precision of 3-dimensional biomimetic scaffolds has been a response characteristic somehow less focused on by researchers, though it is essential as it acts as a stereotype for defect recuperation while consequently developing extracellular matrix and bone regeneration. The present paper fosters re-tuning the process parameters of a fused deposition modeling based 3-dimensional printer while considering the dimensional precision as a response parameter by the Taguchi optimization technique using a full factorial design L27 orthogonal array set of design of experiments. The crystallinity of the polylactic acid filament material was assessed using differential scanning calorimetry and X-ray diffraction. The thermal breakdown of filament material was investigated utilizing a thermogravimetric analyzer. According to Taguchi’s signal-to-noise ratios, the optimum values were 0.14 mm of layer thickness, 20 mm s⁻¹ of printing speed, and 80 % of infill percentage. In order to justify the results, response surface methodology was employed. R-square values for Taguchi and the response surface models were 88.61 % and 68.71 %, respectively.

Keywords: Additive manufacturing; Fused deposition modeling; Dimensional accuracy; Taguchi method; Response surface methodology

Corresponding author: Shashikant Vagge, Department of Metallurgy and Materials Sciences, College of Engineering, Pune (COEP) Shivajinagar, 411005, Pune, India, E-mail: stv.meta@coep.ac.in

Acknowledgments

Authors like to thank Dr. Manisha Kulthe, Head of department of Metallurgy and Materials Science and Dr. Sudhir Agashe, Vice Chancellor of COEP Technological University, Pune.

Research ethics: Not applicable.
Author contributions: Siddhant Gade: Study, conception and design, data collection, analysis; Shashikant Vagge: Analysis, Interpretation of results, and manuscript preparation.
Competing interests: Authors have no competing interests to declare.
Research funding: None declared.
Data availability: The raw data that supports the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

References

1. Jimenez, M., Romero, L., Domnguez, I. A., del Mar Espinosa, M., Domnguez, M. HPC Complex. 2019, 30, 9656938. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9656938.Search in Google Scholar

2. Bourell, D., Kruth, J. P., Ming, L., Levy, G., Rosen, D., Beese, A. M., Clare, A. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 66, 659–681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2017.05.009.Search in Google Scholar

3. Serra, T., Mateos-Timoneda, M. A., Planell, J. A., Navarro, M. Organogenesis 2013, 9, 239–244. https://doi.org/10.4161/org.26048.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

4. Nikolovaa, M. P., Chavali, M. S. Bioact. Mater. 2019, 4, 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2019.10.005.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

5. Akande, S. O. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 2015, 4, 196–202.Search in Google Scholar

6. Nancharaiah, T., Raju, D. R., Raju, V. R. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. 2010, 1, 106–111.Search in Google Scholar

7. Qattawi, A., Alrawi, B., Guzman, A. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 10, 791–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.079.Search in Google Scholar

8. Wu, J. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 392, 062050. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/392/6/062050.Search in Google Scholar

9. Mofokeng, J. P., Luyt, A. S., Tabi, T., Kovacs, J. J. Thermoplast. Compos. Mater. 2012, 25, 927–948. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892705711423291.Search in Google Scholar

10. John, R., Espera Jr, D. A. H., Chena, Q., Advincula, R. C. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 20, 44–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2017.12.002.Search in Google Scholar

11. Wong, K. V., Hernandez, A. HPC ISRN Mech. Engg. 2012, 10, 208760. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/208760.Search in Google Scholar

12. Sheoran, A. J., Kumar, H. Mater. Today: Proc. 2020, 21, 1659–1672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.11.296.Search in Google Scholar

13. Sawai, D., Takahashi, K., Sasashige, A., Kanamoto, T., Hyon, S.-H. Macromolecules 2003, 36, 3601–3605. https://doi.org/10.1021/ma030050z.Search in Google Scholar

14. Singh, N., Singh, S., Dash, D., Mohanty, A., Misra, M., Maiti, P. J. Phys. Chem. C 2013, 117, 10163–10174. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp4009042.Search in Google Scholar

15. Asadi-Eydivand, M., Solati-Hashjin, M., Farzad, A., Osman, N. A. A. Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 2016, 37, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2015.06.005.Search in Google Scholar

16. Chelladurai, S. J. S., Murugan, K., Ray, A. P., Upadhyaya, M., Narasimharaj, V., Gnanasekaran, S. Mater. Today: Proc. 2021, 37, 1301–1304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.06.466.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-06-06

Accepted: 2023-01-16

Published Online: 2023-10-30

Published in Print: 2023-10-27

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/ijmr-2022-0267

Keywords for this article

Additive manufacturing; Fused deposition modeling; Dimensional accuracy; Taguchi method; Response surface methodology