In situ defect detection and feedback control with three-dimensional extrusion-based bioprinter-associated optical coherence tomography
Extrusion-based three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting is one of the most common methods used for tissue fabrication and is the most widely used additive manufacturing technique in all industries. In extrusion-based bioprinting, printing defects related to material deposition errors lead to a significant deviation from shape to function between the printed construct and design model. Using 3D extrusion-based bioprinter-associated optical coherence tomography (3D P-OCT), an in situ defect detection and feedback system was presented based on the accurate defect analysis and location, and a pre-built feedback mechanism. Using 3D P-OCT, multi-parameter quantification of the material deposition was carried out in real time, including the filament size, layer thickness, and layer fidelity. The material deposition errors under different paths were quantified and located specifically, including the start-stop points, straight-line path, and turnarounds. The pre-built feedback mechanism involving the control inputs, such as printing path, pressure, and velocity, provided the basis for in situ defect detection and real-time feedback control. In particular, the second printing repair can be performed after the broken filament defect is detected and located. After printing, fidelity can be quantitatively analyzed based on the point cloud registration between the 3D P-OCT result and the design model. In conclusion, 3D P-OCT enables in situ defect detection and feedback control, broken filament repair, and 3D fidelity analysis to achieve high-fidelity printing from shape to function.
1. Matai I, Kaur G, Seyedsalehi A, et al., 2009, Progress in 3D bioprinting technology for tissue/organ regenerative engineering. Biomaterials, 226: 119536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119536
2. Yang Q, Lian Q, Xu F, 2017, Perspective: Fabrication of integrated organ-on-a-chip via bioprinting. Biomicrofluidics, 11: 031301. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4982945
3. De Moor L, Merovci I, Baetens S, et al., 2018, High-throughput fabrication of vascularized spheroids for bioprinting. Biofabrication, 10: 035009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aac7e6
4. Memic A, Navaei A, Mirani B, et al., 2017, Bioprinting technologies for disease modeling. Biotechnol Lett, 39: 1279–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-017-2360-z
5. Kim JH, Yoo JJ, Lee SJ, 2016, Three-dimensional cell-based bioprinting for soft tissue regeneration. Tissue Eng Regen Med, 13: 647–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13770-016-0133-8
6. Armstrong AA, Norato J, Alleyne AG, et al., 2019, Direct process feedback in extrusion-based 3D bioprinting. Biofabrication, 12: 015017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/ab4d97
7. Vaezi M, Zhong G, Kalami H, et al., 2018, Extrusion-based 3D printing technologies for 3Dscaffold engineering. Funct 3D Tissue Eng Scaffolds, 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-100979-6.00010-0
8. Derakhshanfar S, Mbeleck R, Xu K, et al., 2018, 3D bioprinting for biomedical devices and tissue engineering: A review of recent trends and advances. Bioact Mater, 3: 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.11.008
9. Rustom LE, Boudou T, Nemke BW, et al., 2017, Multiscale porosity directs bone regeneration in biphasic calcium phosphate scaffolds. Acs Biomater Sci Eng, 3: 2768–2778. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b00632
10. Baji A, Wong SC, Srivatsan TS, et al., 2006, Processing methodologies for polycaprolactone-hydroxyapatite composites: A review. Mater Manuf Process, 21: 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1081/amp-200068681
11. Ji K, Wang Y, Wei Q, et al., 2018, Application of 3D printing technology in bone tissue engineering. BioDes Manuf, 1: 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42242-018-0021-2
12. Heinrich MA, Bansal R, Lammers T, et al., 2019, 3D-bioprinted mini-brain: A glioblastoma model to study cellular interactions and therapeutics. Adv Mater, 31: e1806590. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201806590
13. Simeunović A, Hoelzle DJ, 2020, Nonlinear and linearized gray box models of direct-write printing dynamics. Rapid Prototyp J, 26: 1665–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/rpj-12-2018-0303
14. Aloisi V, Carmignato S, 2016, Influence of Surface Roughness on X-Ray Computed Tomography Dimensional Measurements of Additive Manufactured Parts. Case Stud Nondestruct Test Eval, 66:104–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csndt.2016.05.005
15. Ma Y, Ji Y, Zhong T, et al., 2017, Bioprinting-based PDLSC-ECM screening for in vivo repair of alveolar bone defect using cell-laden, injectable and photocrosslinkable hydrogels. ACS Biomater Sci Eng, 3: 3534–3545. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.7b00601
16. Morozov EV, Novikov MM, Bouznik VM, 2016, MRI monitoring and non-destructive quality measurement of polymeric patterns manufactured via stereolithography. Addit Manuf, 12: 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2016.05.015
17. Holzmond O, Li X, 2017, In Situ real time defect detection of 3D printed parts. Addit Manuf, 17: 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2017.08.003
18. Armstrong AA, Alleyne AG, Johnson AJ, 2020, 1D and 2D error assessment and correction for extrusion-based bioprinting using process sensing and control strategies. Biofabrication, 12: 045023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/aba8ee
19. Yang S, Wang L, Chen Q, et al., 2021, In Situ process monitoring and automated multi-parameter evaluation using optical coherence tomography during extrusion-based bioprinting. Addit Manuf, 47: 102251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.102251
20. Fujimoto JG, Pitris C, Boppart SA, et al., 2000, Optical coherence tomography: An emerging technology for biomedical imaging and optical biopsy. Neoplasia, 2: 9–25.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.neo.7900071
21. DePond PJ, Guss G, Ly S, et al., 2018, In Situ measurements of layer roughness during laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing using low coherence scanning interferometry. Mater Des, 154: 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2018.05.050
22. Armstrong AA, Pfeil A, Alleyne AG, et al., 2021, Process monitoring and control strategies in extrusion-based bioprinting to fabricate spatially graded structures. Bioprinting, 21: e00126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bprint.2020.e00126
23. Goh GD, Hamzah NM, Yeong WY, 2022, Anomaly detection in fused filament fabrication using machine learning. 3D Print Addit Manuf. Ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2021.0231
24. Jin Z, Zhang Z, Shao X, et al., 2021, Monitoring anomalies in 3D bioprinting with deep neural networks. ACS Biomater Sci Eng, 40: 33. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.0c01761
25. Yang Q, Gao B, Xu F, 2020, Recent advances in 4D bioprinting. Biotechnol J, 15: e1900086. https://doi.org/10.1002/biot.201900086
26. Gao B, Yang Q, Zhao X, et al., 2016, 4D bioprinting for biomedical applications. Trends Biotechnol, 34: 746–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.03.004
27. Ji Y, Yang Q, Huang G, et al., 2019, Improved resolution and fidelity of droplet-based bioprinting by upward ejection. ACS Biomater Sci Eng, 5: 4112–4121. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.9b00400
28. Qing H, Ji Y, Li W, et al., 2020, Microfluidic printing of three-dimensional graphene electroactive microfibrous scaffolds. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 12: 2049–2058. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.9b17948