Abstract
The capacity of 3D printing (3DP) technologies to initiate speedy polymerization of solvent-free resins accounts for their utility in the manufacturing of medical devices. Nonetheless, independent biological evaluation of 3D-printed materials is recommended due to the unique parameters of the manufacturing process, which can influence their physical, chemical and biological properties. In this study, E-Shell 450 clear methacrylate indicated for 3DP of hearing devices was examined for biological safety using zebrafish bioassays adapted to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) fish embryo test. In addition, the proprietary material was characterized for composition using headspace gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS). To initiate the biological test, newly fertilized zebrafish eggs were cultured on non-treated and ethanol-treated methacrylates in glass petri dishes with ultrapure water, incubated at 28.5 °C and assessed for developmental endpoints of toxicity at 24 h intervals until 96 h. Toxicological data indicate that non-treated methacrylate is extremely toxic in zebrafish bioassays, whereas ethanol-treated counterpart showed a relative lower toxicity possibly due to ethanoic–aqueous interactions as observed by GC–MS. With the current influx of 3D printing materials, users are urged to exercise caution. Operators must also take cognizance of the potential toxicity of the chemicals used in 3DP and implement safety measures to limit their exposure.
Highlights
IntroductionThe recent hype surrounding 3D printing (3DP) attests to its growing popularity in almost every manufacturing sector including medicine, architecture, sports, aerospace and automotive engineering and contemporary arts [1]. 3DP comprise a host of processes and technologies that offer a diverse spectrum of capabilities for the manufacturing of end-use products and devices in different materials [2]
Toxicological data indicate that non-treated methacrylate is extremely toxic in zebrafish bioassays, whereas ethanol-treated counterpart showed a relative lower toxicity possibly due to ethanoic–aqueous interactions as observed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS)
The recent hype surrounding 3D printing (3DP) attests to its growing popularity in almost every manufacturing sector including medicine, architecture, sports, aerospace and automotive engineering and contemporary arts [1]. 3DP comprise a host of processes and technologies that offer a diverse spectrum of capabilities for the manufacturing of end-use products and devices in different materials [2]
Summary
The recent hype surrounding 3D printing (3DP) attests to its growing popularity in almost every manufacturing sector including medicine, architecture, sports, aerospace and automotive engineering and contemporary arts [1]. 3DP comprise a host of processes and technologies that offer a diverse spectrum of capabilities for the manufacturing of end-use products and devices in different materials [2]. DLP is similar to stereolithography (SL) in that2both vat photopolymerization processes that require washing built parts in organic solvents to remove any digital light processing (DLP) technology [11]. DLP is similar to stereolithography (SL) in that both wet resin remnants, followed by postcuring to harden them. DLP uses a more conventional are vat photopolymerization processes that require washing built parts in organic solvents to remove light source such as an arc lamp, with a liquid crystal display panel or a deformable mirror device, any wet resin remnants, followed by postcuring to harden them. DLP uses a more whichconventional is applied to thesource entire such surface of the vat of with resinain a single pass, relatively it faster than light as an arc lamp, liquid crystal display panelmaking or a deformable
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
