Three-dimensional printing (3DP) is one of the rapidly growing additive manufacturing (AM) technologies due to its ability to print biocompatible polymeric scaffolds directly. Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM), one of the many 3D printing methods, uses specialized printers in which the extruded material is deposited, layer after layer, in the desired shape. This method for scaffold fabrication is widely applied to various types of scaffolds due to the precise control it offers over the scaffold architecture at the micron-level. In the past, many 3D scaffold designs have been fabricated to explore the mechanical and biological viability of a 3D printed Polylactic acid (PLA) scaffold as a construct which could support cellular life. However, all AM approaches require a computer-aided design (CAD) file, from which the complex shapes are read via a 3D scanner. Moreover, the commercial 3D printer is expensive as compared to the 3D pens. This study aims to compare the mechanical properties of the scaffolds fabricated by using a 3D printer and a 3D pen. A 3D pen can perform the same functions as that of a 3D printer, with the advantage being that no CAD files are required. 3D pens are cheaper than 3D printers and lie in the price range of 15 USD to 150 USD. They allow for higher flexibility and creativity, to suit the desired application and consume lesser time for fabrication. Compression testing was conducted on the 3D printed scaffolds which were printed using a 3D printer and 3D pen. The bulk and surface chemistry were characterized by using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR). The crystallinity, morphology and glass transition temperature after processing, were evaluated by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC). Key differences between the samples in terms of compressive strength were found and reported.

1.
Lucas D.
Albrecht
,
Stephen W.
Sawyer
, and
Pranav
Soman
,
3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing
, Vol.
3
, No.
2
, pp.
106
112
(
2016
).
2.
Agathe
Grémare
,
Vera
Guduric
,
Reine
Bareille
,
Valérie
Heroguez
,
Simon
Latour
,
Nicolas
L’Heureux
,
Jean-Christophe
Fricain
,
Sylvain
Catros
,
Damien
Le Nihouannen
,
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A.
Vol
106
, Issue
4
, pp.
887
894
(
2017
).
3.
Wang
,
M.
,
Favi
,
P.
,
Cheng
,
X.
,
Golshan
,
N.H.
,
Ziemer
,
K.S.
,
Keidar
,
M.
,
Webster
,
T.J.
,
Acta Biomaterialia
, Vol.
46
, pp.
256
265
(
2016
).
4.
Susmita
Bose
,
Sahar
Vahabzadeh
,
Amit
Bandyopadhyay
,
Materials Today
, Volume
16
, Issue
12
, pp.
496
504
(
2013
).
5.
Kurniawan
Yuniarto
,
Yohanes Aris
Purwanto
,
Setyo
Purwanto
,
Bruce A.
Welt
,
Hadi Karia
Purwadaria
, and
Titi Candra
Sunarti
,
The 3rd International Conference on Advanced Materials Science and Technology
,
Semarang
,
2015
, edited by
Heru
Susanto
,
Risa
Suryana
,
Kuwat
Triyana
,
AIP Conference Proceedings
1725
,
020101
(
American Institute of Physics
,
Melville, NY
,
2016
).
This content is only available via PDF.