Journal: Biotechnology and bioengineering

Article Title: Dual-Chambered Membrane Bioreactor for Co-Culture of Stratified Cell Populations

doi: 10.1002/bit.27164

Figure Lengend Snippet: DCB design and 3D printing. A) Layered microstructure of human skin and our approach to the development of a simplified layered tissue engineering scaffold. B) Approach to the formation of strata and gradients in a DCB. i) When cultured independently, scaffolds have a single, homogeneous cell population; layering the scaffolds in vivo would result in poor integration and uncontrolled gradient interface. ii) The DCB allows two flow lines of media into a common chamber; without a barrier, the two flows would mix producing a gradient. iii) Inclusion of a membrane in the DCB would keep the flow lines separated producing a stratified construct; permeability of the membrane would regulate transport between the two sides. C) i) The DCB is composed of two equal master pieces that can be sealed together; ii) the master piece is composed of an inlet, an outlet, and an open centerpiece, as well as including guide channels for sealing gaskets; iii-iv) when combined, the cross-section reveals a common chamber that provides an interface for communication between the two flow lines. D-E) The master pieces and custom porous scaffolds for cell culturing were 3D printed on a Perfactory 4 DLP printer (EnvisionTEC) using EShell resin. F) The final DCB system assembled has been optimized to have maximum external dimensions of 64 × 40 × 23 mm (length, width, height), an effective internal volume of 3.8 ml (total volume as seen in Fig. Civ in green, shades distinguish the two halves that compose it), and inlet and outlet connections to standard 1/8” (3.175 mm) inner diameter tubing.

Article Snippet: The master parts were 3D printed out of EShell 300 resin on a stereolithography-based printer (Perfactory 4 DLP printer, EnvisionTEC Inc., Dearborn, MI).

Techniques: Cell Culture, In Vivo, Construct, Permeability

Journal: Materials

Article Title: Additively Manufactured Zirconia for Dental Applications

doi: 10.3390/ma14133694

Figure Lengend Snippet: Details of the zirconia ceramics investigated.

Article Snippet: This can be related to differences in their manufacturing method: LithaCon 3Y 230 (Lithoz) was fabricated by digital light printing (DLP)-stereolithography (SLA), whereas 3D Mix zirconia (3DCeram Sinto) was fabricated by laser-based SLA.

Techniques:

Journal: Materials

Article Title: Additively Manufactured Zirconia for Dental Applications

doi: 10.3390/ma14133694

Figure Lengend Snippet: Relative amounts of each phase for the 3Y-TZPs and ATZ investigated.

Article Snippet: This can be related to differences in their manufacturing method: LithaCon 3Y 230 (Lithoz) was fabricated by digital light printing (DLP)-stereolithography (SLA), whereas 3D Mix zirconia (3DCeram Sinto) was fabricated by laser-based SLA.

Techniques:

Journal: Materials

Article Title: Additively Manufactured Zirconia for Dental Applications

doi: 10.3390/ma14133694

Figure Lengend Snippet: Representative X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns for the 3Y-TZPs and ATZ investigated. The subtractively manufactured zirconia (LAVA Plus, 3M Oral Care) and additively manufactured zirconia (LithaCon 3Y 230, Lythoz; 3D Mix zirconia, 3DCeram Sinto) present comparable XRD patterns. On the other hand, 3D Mix ATZ (3DCeram Sinto) clearly shows Al 2 O 3 peaks (open white arrows).

Article Snippet: This can be related to differences in their manufacturing method: LithaCon 3Y 230 (Lithoz) was fabricated by digital light printing (DLP)-stereolithography (SLA), whereas 3D Mix zirconia (3DCeram Sinto) was fabricated by laser-based SLA.

Techniques:

Journal: Materials

Article Title: Additively Manufactured Zirconia for Dental Applications

doi: 10.3390/ma14133694

Figure Lengend Snippet: Summary of the Weibull biaxial strength analysis.

Article Snippet: This can be related to differences in their manufacturing method: LithaCon 3Y 230 (Lithoz) was fabricated by digital light printing (DLP)-stereolithography (SLA), whereas 3D Mix zirconia (3DCeram Sinto) was fabricated by laser-based SLA.

Techniques:

Journal: Materials

Article Title: Additively Manufactured Zirconia for Dental Applications

doi: 10.3390/ma14133694

Figure Lengend Snippet: Representative SEM photomicrographs. ( a ) subtractively manufactured 3Y-TZP (LAVA Plus, 3M Oral care); ( b ) additively manufactured 3Y-TZP (LithaCon 3Y 230, Lithoz); ( c ) additively manufactured 3Y-TZP (3D Mix zirconia, 3DCeram Sinto); ( d ) additively manufactured ATZ (3D Mix ATZ, 3DCeram Sinto).

Article Snippet: This can be related to differences in their manufacturing method: LithaCon 3Y 230 (Lithoz) was fabricated by digital light printing (DLP)-stereolithography (SLA), whereas 3D Mix zirconia (3DCeram Sinto) was fabricated by laser-based SLA.

Techniques:

Journal: Materials

Article Title: Additively Manufactured Zirconia for Dental Applications

doi: 10.3390/ma14133694

Figure Lengend Snippet: Representative FE-SEM photomicrographs and EDS maps of Zr, Al, and O. ( a ) subtractively manufactured 3Y-TZP (LAVA Plus, 3M Oral Care); ( b ) additively manufactured 3Y-TZP (LithaCon 3Y 230, Lithoz); ( c ) additively manufactured 3Y-TZP (3D Mix zirconia, 3DCeram Sinto); ( d ) additively manufactured zirconia (3D Mix ATZ, 3DCeram Sinto).

Article Snippet: This can be related to differences in their manufacturing method: LithaCon 3Y 230 (Lithoz) was fabricated by digital light printing (DLP)-stereolithography (SLA), whereas 3D Mix zirconia (3DCeram Sinto) was fabricated by laser-based SLA.

Techniques: