3D bioprinting of polycaprolactone (PCL) is an additive manufacturing technique, fabricating 3D scaffolds with widespread applications in biomedical bone regeneration. PCL has favorable properties such as tunable mechanical, biological, cytocompatibility, and good printability. In addition, adding magnesium oxide (MgO) nanoparticles effectively enhance bioactivities and bone formation. However, several researchers are reported that PCL-MgO nanocomposite may face challenges in printability. Therefore, this study has focused on optimizing printing parameters to achieve enhanced mechanical and osteoconductivity properties, printability, and print resolution. A newly developed and cost-effective method, Bayesian optimization (BO), has been applied to achieve this objective. The developed model investigates and accelerates the optimization of printing parameters, including air pressure, printing speed, and nozzle temperature on printability and print resolution. Despite the wide search spaces of printing parameters, the BO model drastically reduces the number of experiments to 11 iterations in each target width. There is a good agreement between the model-predicted and actual values (91% in width). Besides, this model can be used to find optimum process parameters in printing gradient width filament to fabricate 3D gradient scaffolds.
NagelsJStokdijkMRozingPM. Stress shielding and bone resorption in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2003; 12: 35–39.
2.
AminiARLaurencinCTNukavarapuSP. Bone tissue engineering: recent advances and challenges. Crit Rev Biomed Eng2012; 40: 363–408.
3.
LiNGuoRZhangZJ. Bioink formulations for bone tissue regeneration. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2021; 9: 630488.
4.
ChimeneDMillerLCrossLM, et al. Nanoengineered osteoinductive bioink for 3D bioprinting bone tissue. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces2020; 12: 15976–15988.
5.
KhalafATWeiYWanJ, et al. Bone tissue engineering through 3D bioprinting of bioceramic scaffolds: a review and update. Life2022; 12: 903.
6.
LeeJMNgWLYeongWY. Resolution and shape in bioprinting: strategizing towards complex tissue and organ printing. Appl Phys Rev2019; 6: 011307.
7.
XieZWuMShiX, et al. Study on the forming precision optimization of built-in flow channel structure manufactured by selective laser melting. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture2023; 237: 1048–1059.
8.
DaraABahubalendruniMARJohnney MertensA, et al. Numerical and experimental investigations of novel nature inspired open lattice cellular structures for enhanced stiffness and specific energy absorption. Mater Today Commun2022; 31: 103286.
9.
AshokDRaju BahubalendruniMVAJohnney MertensA, et al. A novel nature inspired 3D open lattice structure for specific energy absorption. Proc IMechE, Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering2022; 236: 2434–2440.
10.
Buj-CorralISanz-FraileHTejo-OteroA, et al. Biocompatible 3D printed yttria-stabilized zirconia parts using direct ink writing. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture. Epub ahead of print 24April2023. DOI: 10.1177/09544054231168469.
11.
BalanMMertensJBahubalendruniMVAR. Auxetic mechanical metamaterials and their futuristic developments: a state-of-art review. Mater Today Commun2023; 34: 105285.
12.
DaraABahubalendruniMVARMertensAJ. Does topology optimization exist in nature?Natl Acad Sci Lett2022; 45: 69–73.
13.
BaumersMTuckCBourellDL, et al. Sustainability of additive manufacturing: measuring the energy consumption of the laser sintering process. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture2011; 225: 2228–2239.
14.
BedellMLNavaraAMDuY, et al. Polymeric systems for bioprinting. Chem Rev2020; 120: 10744–10792.
15.
ShenJWangWZhaiX, et al. 3D-printed nanocomposite scaffolds with tunable magnesium ionic microenvironment induce in situ bone tissue regeneration. Appl Mater Today2019; 16: 493–507.
16.
SuryavanshiAKhannaKSindhuKR, et al. Magnesium oxide nanoparticle-loaded polycaprolactone composite electrospun fiber scaffolds for bone-soft tissue engineering applications: in-vitro and in-vivo evaluation. Biomed Mater2017; 12: 055011.
17.
SoufivandAAAbolfathiNHashemiSA, et al. Prediction of mechanical behavior of 3D bioprinted tissue-engineered scaffolds using finite element method (FEM) analysis. Addit Manuf2020; 33: 101181.
18.
JinSXiaXHuangJ, et al. Recent advances in PLGA-based biomaterials for bone tissue regeneration. Acta Biomater2021; 127: 56–79.
19.
RaviPShiakolasPSWelchTR. Poly-l-lactic acid: pellets to fiber to fused filament fabricated scaffolds, and scaffold weight loss study. Addit Manuf2017; 16: 167–176.
20.
YoshizawaSBrownABarchowskyA, et al. Magnesium ion stimulation of bone marrow stromal cells enhances osteogenic activity, simulating the effect of magnesium alloy degradation. Acta Biomater2014; 10: 2834–2842.
21.
QiTWengJYuF, et al. Insights into the role of magnesium ions in affecting osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Biol Trace Elem Res2021; 199: 559–567.
22.
LinZWuJQiaoW, et al. Precisely controlled delivery of magnesium ions thru sponge-like monodisperse PLGA/nano-MgO-alginate core-shell microsphere device to enable in-situ bone regeneration. Biomaterials2018; 174: 1–16.
23.
WongHMWuSChuPK, et al. Low-modulus Mg/PCL hybrid bone substitute for osteoporotic fracture fixation. Biomaterials2013; 34: 7016–7032.
24.
KalimuthanRMahalingamS. Grafting of cellulosic fabric using PVP with MgO nanoparticles for improve performance of bacterial and fungal pathogens. World J Pharm Pharm Sci2014; 3: 1989–2004.
25.
HickeyDJErcanBChungS, et al. MgO nanocomposites as new antibacterial materials for orthopedic tissue engineering applications. In: 2014 40th annual Northeast bioengineering conference (NEBEC), Boston, MA, USA, 25–27 April 2014, pp.1–2. New York: IEEE.
26.
WangWYeungKWK. Bone grafts and biomaterials substitutes for bone defect repair: a review. Bioact Mater2017; 2: 224–247.
27.
CiosekŻKotKKosik-BogackaD, et al. The effects of calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, fluoride, and lead on bone tissue. Biomolecules2021; 11: 506.
28.
BhattacharyyaAJanarthananGNohI. Nano-biomaterials for designing functional bioinks towards complex tissue and organ regeneration in 3D bioprinting. Addit Manuf2021; 37: 101639.
29.
DubeyNFerreiraJAMaldaJ, et al. Extracellular matrix/amorphous magnesium phosphate bioink for 3D bioprinting of craniomaxillofacial bone tissue. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces2020; 12: 23752–23763.
30.
AmbhorkarPRakinRHWangZ, et al. Biofabrication strategies for engineering heterogeneous artificial tissues. Addit Manuf2020; 36: 101459.
31.
TrachtenbergJEPlaconeJKSmithBT, et al. Extrusion-based 3D printing of poly(propylene fumarate) in a full-factorial design. ACS Biomater Sci Eng2016; 2: 1771–1780.
32.
WebbBDoyleBJ. Parameter optimization for 3D bioprinting of hydrogels. Bioprinting2017; 8: 8–12.
33.
SchwabALevatoRD’EsteM, et al. Printability and shape fidelity of bioinks in 3D bioprinting. Chem Rev2020; 120: 11028–11055.
34.
BacchewarPBSinghalSKPandeyPM. Statistical modelling and optimization of surface roughness in the selective laser sintering process. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture2007; 221: 35–52.
35.
RomeroPEBarriosJMMoleroE, et al. Tuning 3D-printing parameters to produce vertical ultra-hydrophobic PETG parts with low ice adhesion: a food industry case study. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture. Epub ahead of print 6June2023. DOI: 10.1177/09544054231178970.
36.
WeiJChuXSunX, et al. Machine learning in materials science. InfoMat2019; 1: 338–358.
37.
ZitnikMNguyenFWangB, et al. Machine learning for integrating data in biology and medicine: principles, practice, and opportunities. Inf Fusion2019; 50: 71–91.
38.
AnJChuaCKMironovV. Application of machine learning in 3D bioprinting: focus on development of big data and digital twin. Int J Bioprinting2021; 7: 342.
39.
PowellMJ. A view of algorithms for optimization without derivatives. Math Today2007; 43: 170–174.
40.
RunarssonTPYaoX. Stochastic ranking for constrained evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput2000; 4: 284–294.
41.
JonesDRPerttunenCDStuckmanBE. Lipschitzian optimization without the Lipschitz constant. J Optim Theory Appl1993; 79: 157–181.
42.
GreenhillSRanaSGuptaS, et al. Bayesian optimization for adaptive experimental design: a review. IEEE Access2020; 8: 13937–13948.
43.
LeiBKirkTQBhattacharyaA, et al. Bayesian optimization with adaptive surrogate models for automated experimental design. NPJ Comp Mater2021; 7: 194.
44.
XueDBalachandranPVHogdenJ, et al. Accelerated search for materials with targeted properties by adaptive design. Nat Commun2016; 7(1): 11241.
45.
VahidARanaSGuptaS, et al. New bayesian-optimization-based design of high-strength 7xxx-series alloys from recycled aluminum. JOM2018; 70: 2704–2709.
46.
LiCRubín de Celis LealDRanaS, et al. Rapid Bayesian optimisation for synthesis of short polymer fiber materials. Sci Rep2017; 7(1): 5683.
47.
RuberuKSenadeeraMRanaS, et al. Coupling machine learning with 3D bioprinting to fast track optimisation of extrusion printing. Appl Mater Today2021; 22: 100914.
48.
XuHLiuQCasillasJ, et al. Prediction of cell viability in dynamic optical projection stereolithography-based bioprinting using machine learning. J Intell Manuf2022; 33: 995–1005.
49.
TianSStevensRMcInnesBT, et al. Machine assisted experimentation of extrusion-based bioprinting systems. Micromachines2021; 12: 780.
50.
BoneJMChildsCMMenonA, et al. Hierarchical machine learning for high-fidelity 3D printed biopolymers. ACS Biomater Sci Eng2020; 6: 7021–7031.
51.
ArmstrongAAPfeilAAlleyneAG, et al. Process monitoring and control strategies in extrusion-based bioprinting to fabricate spatially graded structures. Bioprinting2021; 21: e00126.
52.
SunYYouYJiangW, et al. 3D bioprinting dual-factor releasing and gradient-structured constructs ready to implant for anisotropic cartilage regeneration. Sci Adv2020; 6: eaay1422.
53.
SunYWuQZhangY, et al. 3D-bioprinted gradient-structured scaffold generates anisotropic cartilage with vascularization by pore-size-dependent activation of HIF1α/FAK signaling axis. Nanomedicine2021; 37: 102426.
54.
GhorbanzadehOBlaschkeTGholamniaK, et al. Evaluation of different machine learning methods and deep-learning convolutional neural networks for landslide detection. Remote Sens2019; 11: 196.
55.
XiaoAHuangJGuanD, et al. Unsupervised point cloud representation learning with deep neural networks: a survey. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell2023; 45: 11321–11339.
56.
WangKDowlingAW. Bayesian optimization for chemical products and functional materials. Curr Opin Chem Eng2022; 36: 100728.
WuJChenXYZhangH, et al. Hyperparameter optimization for machine learning models based on Bayesian optimization. J Electron Sci Technol2019; 17: 26–40.
59.
SnoekJRippelOSwerskyK, et al. Scalable bayesian optimization using deep neural networks. In: International conference on machine learning, 2015, pp.2171–2180. PMLR.
60.
BorgliRJStenslandHKRieglerMA, et al. Automatic hyperparameter optimization for transfer learning on medical image datasets using bayesian optimization. In: 2019 13th international symposium on medical information and communication technology (ISMICT), Oslo, Norway, 8–10 May 2019, pp.1–6. New York: IEEE.
