Fig 1.
Overview of scafSLICR approach.
User inputs a labeled 3D shaped and the pore properties for each label (green boxes). The program then generates a support structure between the shape and the print bed (blue/red shape) and tool path templates for each pore pattern (blue boxes). The slicing process convolves these tool path templates with each x-y level of the shape according to the label (gray box). The result of this convolution is then translated into a set of GCODE instructions or into a predicted porous model of the shape (yellow boxes). These outputs can be manufactured on a 3D-printer or used for in silico modeling (orange boxes).
Table 1.
Pore features of homogenous, biphasic, and gradient scaffolds.
Fig 2.
(A) Stereoscope pictures (1X, 5X) of scaffolds produced with scafSLICR demonstrating isometric pores. (B) Relationship of Strut Width and Porosity: Modulating the width of struts can produce a range of discrete porosities that are manufacturable at a given pore diameter for 0.5 mm nozzle.
Table 2.
Maximum porosity for a range of pore diameters.
Fig 3.
3D-printed scaffolds with uniform isotropic pores.
(A) Side-by-side comparison of scaffold previews (top row) and 3D-printed scaffolds (bottom row) for different patterns of pore size and porosity. (B, C) Assessments of print fidelity of pore diameter and strut width to design from top and side views. (D) Observed gravimetric porosity and expected design values. (E) Compressive modulus varies with porosity.
Fig 4.
3D-printed scaffolds with hybrid pore structures.
(A) 3D previews of scaffold designs featuring a more porous region and less porous region which meet at a center boundary. View is top-down onto the xy surface of the scaffold (B) Schematic showing application of force (red arrow) and alignment of scaffold on the platen (black plane) (C) Pore connectivity of transition plane: measured pore areas, number of pores, and area fraction of boundary plane that is connected pore space. Gray lines indicate median and upper and lower quartiles. (D) The compressive modulus of each transition scaffold compared to homogenous scaffolds composed of one of the pore diameter-porosity combinations found in the transition scaffold.
Fig 5.
3D-printed scaffolds with heterogeneous pore structures.
Pictures of cross-sections of 2 × 2 × 2 cm3 ABS scaffolds (left) and design (right). (A) Graded in z. (B) Graded in xy. (C) Graded in xyz.
Fig 6.
3D-printed anatomically shaped scaffolds with heterogeneous pore structures.
Anatomic shapes from the craniofacial skeleton were labeled with different design regions, sliced with scafSLICR, and 3D-printed. (A) Zygomatic arch patterned linearly left-to-right. (B) Hemi-mandible patterned with shells from exterior to interior. (C) Orbital midface complex patterned according to average shape thickness. Scale bar = 1cm.