Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Rapid large-scale morphological control of desulfurized fly ash enables high performance desulfurization material.

Waste management (New York, N.Y.)·2026
Same author

Stabilizing 1.93-eV ultrawide-bandgap perovskites for efficient triple-junction solar cells.

Nature communications·2026
Same author

Network meta-analysis of different preoperative hormone therapies for improving postoperative complications in pediatric hypospadias.

Frontiers in endocrinology·2026
Same author

Dual regulation of bile acids: ameliorating hepatic glycolipid disorders and restoring intestinal health in HFHC-challenged Yellow River carp (Cyprinus carpio L.).

BMC veterinary research·2026
Same author

Fabrication of hollow versus solid nanoparticles via co-assembly of soy protein isolate and gliadin: Structural characterization and functional properties.

Food research international (Ottawa, Ont.)·2026
Same author

High systolic blood pressure and stroke: evidence from the NHANES 1999-2023 and global burden of disease 2021.

Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.)·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jan 2, 2026

Automated Robotic Dispensing Technique for Surface Guidance and Bioprinting of Cells
10:14

Automated Robotic Dispensing Technique for Surface Guidance and Bioprinting of Cells

Published on: November 18, 2016

7.7K

Process-induced cell damage: pneumatic versus screw-driven bioprinting.

Liqun Ning1, Bowen Yang1, Fatemeh Mohabatpour2

  • 1Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, S7N 5A9, SK, Canada.

Biofabrication
|December 6, 2019
PubMed
Summary

Screw-driven bioprinting generally causes more cell damage than pneumatic bioprinting due to higher process-induced forces. This study details differences in cell damage and forces between these bioprinting methods.

More Related Videos

Bioprinting of Cartilage and Skin Tissue Analogs Utilizing a Novel Passive Mixing Unit Technique for Bioink Precellularization
09:03

Bioprinting of Cartilage and Skin Tissue Analogs Utilizing a Novel Passive Mixing Unit Technique for Bioink Precellularization

Published on: January 3, 2018

13.9K
Viability of Bioprinted Cellular Constructs Using a Three Dispenser Cartesian Printer
07:05

Viability of Bioprinted Cellular Constructs Using a Three Dispenser Cartesian Printer

Published on: September 22, 2015

10.4K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jan 2, 2026

Automated Robotic Dispensing Technique for Surface Guidance and Bioprinting of Cells
10:14

Automated Robotic Dispensing Technique for Surface Guidance and Bioprinting of Cells

Published on: November 18, 2016

7.7K
Bioprinting of Cartilage and Skin Tissue Analogs Utilizing a Novel Passive Mixing Unit Technique for Bioink Precellularization
09:03

Bioprinting of Cartilage and Skin Tissue Analogs Utilizing a Novel Passive Mixing Unit Technique for Bioink Precellularization

Published on: January 3, 2018

13.9K
Viability of Bioprinted Cellular Constructs Using a Three Dispenser Cartesian Printer
07:05

Viability of Bioprinted Cellular Constructs Using a Three Dispenser Cartesian Printer

Published on: September 22, 2015

10.4K

Area of Science:

  • Bioprinting technologies
  • Cellular biomechanics
  • Tissue engineering

Background:

  • Bioprinting processes utilize pneumatic or screw-driven mechanisms.
  • These mechanisms can induce forces that cause cell injury or damage.
  • Limited understanding exists regarding the comparative effects of these mechanisms on cell viability.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate and compare process-induced forces and cell damage in pneumatic versus screw-driven bioprinting.
  • To identify similarities and differences between the two bioprinting mechanisms.
  • To correlate cell damage with specific process-induced forces under various printing conditions.

Main Methods:

  • Examination of hydrostatic pressure, shear stress, extensional stress, and tensile/compressive forces.
  • Experimental investigation of cell membrane rupture under varying parameters (flow rates, cell types, bioinks, needle geometry, speeds).
  • Correlation analysis between cell damage percentage and quantified process-induced forces.

Main Results:

  • Screw-driven bioprinting generally induces greater cell damage compared to pneumatic bioprinting.
  • Cell damage varies significantly with printing conditions such as flow rate, bioink properties, and needle characteristics.
  • Process-induced forces were identified as the primary cause of cell membrane rupture.

Conclusions:

  • This study provides the first comparative analysis of pneumatic and screw-driven bioprinting regarding process-induced forces and cell damage.
  • Screw-driven bioprinting demonstrates potential demerits in cell viability control compared to pneumatic methods.
  • Findings offer insights into optimizing bioprinting parameters for enhanced cell survival and process control.