Process Parameter Optimization of 3D-Printer Machine Using Response Surface Method for Printing Hydroxyapatite/Collagen Composite Slurry

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

2 Mechanical Engineering Department, Bengkulu University, Indonesia

3 Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

4 National Nuclear Energy Agency, Indonesia

Abstract

Nowadays, various 3D-Printer technologies are commercially available. However, those printers could only be used for a certain material provided by the printer manufacturers. For new material, the commercial printer could not be employed directly and needs to be modified and its printing parameter has to be optimized to fit the property of the new material. This paper aimed to find the optimum parameters (print speed and layer height) based on printability material. The new material that would be developed was a composite of bioceramic powder (hydroxyapatite) and polymer (collagen) in the form of slurry with ratios of 99.84% (w/v) and 0.16% (w/v). While the printer was a commercial 3D-Printer machine with modification on its cartridge container and bracket. The printing parameters were layer height (0.65, 1.0, 1.35 mm) and print speed (14.4, 25, 35.6 mm/min). Optimization of the printing parameter used Response Surface Method (RSM)  with 13 sets of specimens. Test specimens for defining printable material were printed in the form of  line shape and a rectangular shape for case study. Printability as a responding of the optimum parameter setting was defined on the basis of 5%-maximum dimension error of the printed specimen compared to the 3D-CAD data. Data obtained was analyzed using ANOVA. The results show that the optimum setup printing parameter were 10.009 mm/min for print speed and 0.505 mm for layer height, respectively with the error dimension obtained from the experiment was 0.013 mm2 (0.59%) lower than that of the permitted error of 5% (0.125 mm2).

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Ronoh, K., Mwema, F., Dabees, S., and Sobola, D. “Advances in sustainable grinding of different types of the titanium biomaterials for medical applications: A review.” Biomedical Engineering Advances, Vol. 4, (2022), 100047. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BEA.2022.100047
  2. Agarwal, K. M., Singh, P., Mohan, U., Mandal, S., and Bhatia, D. “Comprehensive study related to advancement in biomaterials for medical applications.” Sensors International, Vol. 1, (2020), 100055. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SINTL.2020.100055
  3. Ajmal, S., Athar Hashmi, F., and Imran, I. “Recent progress in development and applications of biomaterials.” Materials Today: Proceedings, Vol. 62, (2022), 385-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATPR.2022.04.233
  4. Kanwar, S., and Vijayavenkataraman, S. “Design of 3D printed scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: A review.” Bioprinting, Vol. 24, (2021), e00167. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BPRINT.2021.E00167
  5. Annur, D., Bayu, F., Supriadi, S., and Suharno, B. “Electrophoretic Deposition of Hydroxyapatite/Chitosan Coating on Porous Titanium for Orthopedic Application.” Evergreen, Vol. 9, No. 1, (2022), 109-114. https://doi.org/10.5109/4774222
  6. Kumar, M., Ghosh, S., Kumar, V., Sharma, V., and Roy, P. “Tribo-mechanical and biological characterization of PEGDA/bioceramics composites fabricated using stereolithography.” Journal of Manufacturing Processes, Vol. 77, (2022), 301-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JMAPRO.2022.03.024
  7. Tontowi, A. E., Raharjo, K. P., Sihaloho, R. I., and Baroroh, D. K. “Comparison of design method for making composite of (PMMA/HA/Sericin).” Materials Science Forum, Vol. 901 MSF, (2017), 85-90. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.901.85
  8. Van Hoten, H., Gunawarman, Mulyadi, I. H., Mainil, A. K., Bismantolo, P., and Nurbaiti. “Parameters optimization in manufacturing nanopowder bioceramics of eggshell with pulverisette 6 machine using taguchi and ANOVA method.” International Journal of Engineering, Transactions A: Basics, Vol. 31, No. 1, (2018), 45-49. https://doi.org/10.5829/ije.2018.31.01a.07
  9. You, B. C., Meng, C. E., Mohd Nasir, N. F., Mohd Tarmizi, E. Z., Fhan, K. S., Kheng, E. S., Abdul Majid, M. S., and Mohd Jamir, M. R. “Dielectric and biodegradation properties of biodegradable nano-hydroxyapatite/starch bone scaffold.” Journal of Materials Research and Technology, Vol. 18, (2022), 3215-3226. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JMRT.2022.04.014
  10. Bhat, S., Uthappa, U. T., Altalhi, T., Jung, H. Y., and Kurkuri, M. D. “Functionalized Porous Hydroxyapatite Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering Applications: A Focused Review.” ACS Biomaterials Science and Engineering, (2021). https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.1c00438
  11. Ou, M., and Huang, X. “Influence of bone formation by composite scaffolds with different proportions of hydroxyapatite and collagen.” Dental Materials, Vol. 37, No. 4, (2021), e231-e244. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DENTAL.2020.12.006
  12. Arahira, T., and Todo, M. “Development of novel collagen scaffolds with different bioceramic particles for bone tissue engineering.” Composites Communications, Vol. 16, (2019), 30-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COCO.2019.08.012
  13. Ambekar, R. S., and Kandasubramanian, B. “Progress in the Advancement of Porous Biopolymer Scaffold: Tissue Engineering Application.” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, Vol. 58, No. 16, (2019), 6163-6194. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b05334
  14. Ramesh, N., Moratti, S. C., and Dias, G. J. “Hydroxyapatite–polymer biocomposites for bone regeneration: A review of current trends.” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research - Part B Applied Biomaterials, Vol. 106, No. 5, (2018), 2046-2057. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33950
  15. Chai, Y., Okuda, M., Otsuka, Y., Ohnuma, K., and Tagaya, M. “Comparison of two fabrication processes for biomimetic collagen/hydroxyapatite hybrids.” Advanced Powder Technology, Vol. 30, No. 7, (2019), 1419-1423. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APT.2019.04.012
  16. Mallick, M., Are, R. P., and Babu, A. R. “An overview of collagen/bioceramic and synthetic collagen for bone tissue engineering.” Materialia, Vol. 22, (2022), 101391. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MTLA.2022.101391
  17. Nemati, N. H., and Mirhadi, S. M. “Study on Polycaprolactone Coated Hierarchical Meso/Macroporous Titania Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering.” International Journal of Engineering, Transactions A: Basics, Vol. 35, No. 10, (2022), 1887-1894. https://doi.org/10.5829/ije.2022.35.10a.08
  18. Sharma, S., Rai, V. K., Narang, R. K., and Markandeywar, T. S. “Collagen-based formulations for wound healing: A literature review.” Life Sciences, Vol. 290, (2022), 120096. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LFS.2021.120096
  19. Maher, M., Castilho, M., Yue, Z., Glattauer, V., Hughes, T. C., Ramshaw, J. A. M., and Wallace, G. G. “Shaping collagen for engineering hard tissues: Towards a printomics approach.” Acta Biomaterialia, Vol. 131, (2021), 41-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTBIO.2021.06.035
  20. Lamnini, S., Elsayed, H., Lakhdar, Y., Baino, F., Smeacetto, F., and Bernardo, E. “Robocasting of advanced ceramics: ink optimization and protocol to predict the printing parameters - A review.” Heliyon, Vol. 8, No. 9, (2022), e10651. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HELIYON.2022.E10651
  21. Tagliaferri, S., Panagiotopoulos, A., and Mattevi, C. “Direct ink writing of energy materials.” Materials Advances, Vol. 2, No. 2, (2021), 540-563. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0ma00753f
  22. Mohammed, A. A., Algahtani, M. S., Ahmad, M. Z., Ahmad, J., and Kotta, S. “3D Printing in medicine: Technology overview and drug delivery applications.” Annals of 3D Printed Medicine, Vol. 4, (2021), 100037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stlm.2021.100037
  23. Lin, K., Sheikh, R., Romanazzo, S., and Iman, R. “3D Printing of Bioceramic Scaffolds — Barriers to the Clinical Translation : From Promise to Reality, and Future Perspectives.” Materials, Vol. 12, No. 17, (2019), 2660.
  24. Putlyaev, V. I., Yevdokimov, P. V., Mamonov, S. A., Zorin, V. N., Klimashina, E. S., Rodin, I. A., Safronova, T. V., and Garshev, A. V. “Stereolithographic 3D Printing of Bioceramic Scaffolds of a Given Shape and Architecture for Bone Tissue Regeneration.” Inorganic Materials: Applied Research, Vol. 10, No. 5, (2019), 1101-1108. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2075113319050277
  25. Zhang, T., Zhao, W., Xiahou, Z., Wang, X., Zhang, K., and Yin, J. “Bioink design for extrusion-based bioprinting.” Applied Materials Today, Vol. 25, (2021), 101227. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APMT.2021.101227
  26. Lu, C., Zhang, Z., Shi, C., Li, N., Jiao, D., and Yuan, Q. “Rheology of alkali-activated materials: A review.” Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 121, (2021), 104061. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEMCONCOMP.2021.104061
  27. McGlynn, J. A., Druggan, K. J., Croland, K. J., and Schultz, K. M. “Human mesenchymal stem cell-engineered length scale dependent rheology of the pericellular region measured with bi-disperse multiple particle tracking microrheology.” Acta Biomaterialia, Vol. 121, (2021), 405-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTBIO.2020.11.048
  28. Maas, M., Hess, U., and Rezwan, K. “The contribution of rheology for designing hydroxyapatite biomaterials.” Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science, Vol. 19, No. 6, (2014), 585-593. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COCIS.2014.09.002
  29. Ghelich, R., Jahannama, M. R., Abdizadeh, H., Torknik, F. S., and Vaezi, M. R. “Central composite design (CCD)-Response surface methodology (RSM) of effective electrospinning parameters on PVP-B-Hf hybrid nanofibrous composites for synthesis of HfB2-based composite nanofibers.” Composites Part B: Engineering, Vol. 166, (2019), 527-541. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2019.01.094
  30. Hadiyat, M. A., Sopha, B. M., and Wibowo, B. S. “Response Surface Methodology Using Observational Data: A Systematic Literature Review.” Applied Sciences (Switzerland), Vol. 12, No. 20, (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010663
  31. Vahdani, M., Ghazavi, M., and Roustaei, M. “Prediction of mechanical properties of frozen soils using response surface method: An optimization approach.” International Journal of Engineering, Transactions A: Basics, Vol. 33, No. 10, (2020), 1826–1841. https://doi.org/10.5829/IJE.2020.33.10A.02
  32. Singh, D. K., and Tirkey, J. V. “Modeling and multi-objective optimization of variable air gasification performance parameters using Syzygium cumini biomass by integrating ASPEN Plus with Response surface methodology (RSM).” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 46, No. 36, (2021), 18816-18831. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2021.03.054
  33. Waila, V. C., Sharma, A., and Yusuf, M. “Optimizing the Performance of Solar PV Water Pump by Using Response Surface Methodology.” Evergreen, Vol. 9, No. 4, (2022), 1151-1159. https://doi.org/10.5109/6625726
  34. Reddy, S. S., and Reddy, M. A. K. “Optimization of calcined bentonite caly utilization in cement mortar using response surface methodology.” International Journal of Engineering, Transactions A: Basics, Vol. 34, No. 7, (2021), 1623-1631. https://doi.org/10.5829/IJE.2021.34.07A.07
  35. Sun, W., Feng, L., Abed, A. M., Sharma, A., and Arsalanloo, A. “Thermoeconomic assessment of a renewable hybrid RO/PEM electrolyzer integrated with Kalina cycle and solar dryer unit using response surface methodology (RSM).” Energy, Vol. 260, (2022), 124947. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2022.124947
  36. Cao, C., Zhao, Y., Dai, D., Zhang, X., Song, Z., Liu, Q., Liu, G., Gao, Y., Zhang, H., and Zheng, Z. “Simulation analysis and optimization of laser preheating SiC ceramics based on RSM.” International Journal of Thermal Sciences, Vol. 185, (2023), 108070. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJTHERMALSCI.2022.108070
  37. Karkare, Y. Y., Sathe, V. S., and Chavan, A. R. “RSM-CCD optimized facile and efficient microwave-assisted green synthesis of Aripiprazole intermediate.” Chemical Engineering and Processing - Process Intensification, Vol. 173, (2022), 108819. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEP.2022.108819
  38. Hosseinpour, M., Soltani, M., Noofeli, A., and Nathwani, J. “An optimization study on heavy oil upgrading in supercritical water through the response surface methodology (RSM).” Fuel, Vol. 271, (2020), 117618. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUEL.2020.117618
  39. Isaac, R., and Siddiqui, S. “Sequestration of Ni(II) and Cu(II) using FeSO4 modified Zea mays husk magnetic biochar: Isotherm, kinetics, thermodynamic studies and RSM.” Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances, Vol. 8, (2022), 100162. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HAZADV.2022.100162
  40. Myer, H. R., Montgomery, C. D., and Anderson-cook, M. C. Response Surface Methodology (Vol. 21). Wiley. Retrieved from http://journal.um-surabaya.ac.id/index.php/JKM/article/view/2203
  41. Naghieh, S., and Chen, X. “Printability–A key issue in extrusion-based bioprinting.” Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 5, (2021), 564-579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpha.2021.02.001
  42. Karimi, Y., Rashahmadi, S., and Hasanzadeh, R. “The effects of newmark method parameters on errors in dynamic extended finite element method using response surface method.” International Journal of Engineering, Transactions A: Basics, Vol. 31, No. 1, (2018), 50-57. https://doi.org/10.5829/ije.2018.31.01a.08
International Journal of Engineering
Volume 36, Issue 11
TRANSACTIONS B: Applications
November 2023
Pages 1961-1971

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics