@phdthesis{Gensler2023,
  author    = {Gensler, Marius E.},
  title     = {Simultaneous printing of tissue and customized bioreactor},
  doi       = {10.25972/OPUS-28019},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-280190},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Additive manufacturing processes such as 3D printing are booming in the industry due to their high degree of freedom in terms of geometric shapes and available materials. Focusing on patient-specific medicine, 3D printing has also proven useful in the Life Sciences, where it exploits the shape fidelity for individualized tissues in the field of bioprinting. In parallel, the current systems of bioreactor technology have adapted to the new manufacturing technology as well and 3D-printed bioreactors are increasingly being developed. For the first time, this work combines the manufacturing of the tissue and a tailored bioreactor, significantly streamlining the overall process and optimally merging the two processes. This way the production of the tissues can be individualized by customizing the reactor to the tissue and the patient-specific wound geometry. For this reason, a common basis and guideline for the cross-device and cross-material use of 3D printers was created initially. Their applicability was demonstrated by the iterative development of a perfusable bioreactor system, made from polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) and a lignin-based filament, into which a biological tissue of flexible shape can be bioprinted. Cost-effective bioink-replacements and in silico computational fluid dynamics simulations were used for material sustainability and shape development. Also, nutrient distribution and shear stress could be predicted in this way pre-experimentally. As a proof of functionality and adaptability of the reactor, tissues made from a nanocellulose-based Cellink® Bioink, as well as an alginate-based ink mixed with Me-PMeOx100-b-PnPrOzi100-EIP (POx) (Alginate-POx bioink) were successfully cultured dynamically in the bioreactor together with C2C12 cell line. Tissue maturation was further demonstrated using hMSC which were successfully induced to adipocyte differentiation. For further standardization, a mobile electrical device for automated media exchange was developed, improving handling in the laboratory and thus reduces the probability of contamination.},
  subject      = {3 D bioprinting},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GenslerLeikeimMoellmannetal.2020,
  author    = {Gensler, Marius and Leikeim, Anna and M{\"o}llmann, Marc and Komma, Miriam and Heid, Susanne and M{\"u}ller, Claudia and Boccaccini, Aldo R. and Salehi, Sahar and Groeber-Becker, Florian and Hansmann, Jan},
  title     = {3D printing of bioreactors in tissue engineering: A generalised approach},
  series = {PLoS One},
  volume    = {15},
  journal   = {PLoS One},
  number    = {11},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0242615},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-231368},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {3D printing is a rapidly evolving field for biological (bioprinting) and non-biological applications. Due to a high degree of freedom for geometrical parameters in 3D printing, prototype printing of bioreactors is a promising approach in the field of Tissue Engineering. The variety of printers, materials, printing parameters and device settings is difficult to overview both for beginners as well as for most professionals. In order to address this problem, we designed a guidance including test bodies to elucidate the real printing performance for a given printer system. Therefore, performance parameters such as accuracy or mechanical stability of the test bodies are systematically analysed. Moreover, post processing steps such as sterilisation or cleaning are considered in the test procedure. The guidance presented here is also applicable to optimise the printer settings for a given printer device. As proof of concept, we compared fused filament fabrication, stereolithography and selective laser sintering as the three most used printing methods. We determined fused filament fabrication printing as the most economical solution, while stereolithography is most accurate and features the highest surface quality. Finally, we tested the applicability of our guidance by identifying a printer solution to manufacture a complex bioreactor for a perfused tissue construct. Due to its design, the manufacture via subtractive mechanical methods would be 21-fold more expensive than additive manufacturing and therefore, would result in three times the number of parts to be assembled subsequently. Using this bioreactor we showed a successful 14-day-culture of a biofabricated collagen-based tissue construct containing human dermal fibroblasts as the stromal part and a perfusable central channel with human microvascular endothelial cells. Our study indicates how the full potential of biofabrication can be exploited, as most printed tissues exhibit individual shapes and require storage under physiological conditions, after the bioprinting process.},
  language  = {en}
}