The Development of 3D Printable Stretch Bioreactors

Cyclic stretch bioreactors for research and medical field applications have proven beneficial in enhancing muscle tissue growth when compared to static cultures. However, the cost for many commercially available cyclic stretch bioreactors carry large price tags and have limited customizability. Three‐dimensional (3D) modeling combined with 3D printing allows for highly customizable cyclic stretch bioreactors to be designed and printed at a lower cost while potentially maintaining the high degree of precision seen in commercially available bioreactors. The importance of this work is to reduce the cost of cyclic stretch bioreactors to increase availability for use in research and medical fields. Materials and Methods The 3D modeling software, TinkerCAD, and a Flashforge Creator Pro 3D printer with FlashPrint operating software were used for this project. Poly(‐lactic acid) (PLA) filament purchased from Flashforge was used to print several ready‐for‐assembly pieces. O‐rings and glass were purchased from McMaster‐Carr. For lid fabrication, an O‐ring was placed in a molded channel in the body of the bioreactor and a glass cover was affixed. The chamber was sealed and subjected to an air tight test as well as a water tight test. The chamber was submerged for an hour in water first and then dried prior to filling the chamber with water, inverting the chamber for one hour, and checking for leaks. Results and Discussion A one‐chamber‐four‐well system was chosen as it allowed for multiple scaffolds to be stretched at once, minimized the potential sealing failure points, and maximized the utility of the chamber’s small footprint. Models for a one‐chamber‐four‐well system were successfully printed using PLA filament. A notable feature of the model is an integrated channel for an O‐Ring in conjunction with a glass lid to allow for sealing of the chamber to ensure an air and water tight internal environment. The chamber successfully maintained all seals for the air tight test, but during the water tight test some water seeped into the chamber frame. This seepage into the frame could lead to contamination and loss of samples. Conclusions Construction for a cyclic stretch bioreactor, using 3D printing, is an attractive option for lowering cost while increasing customizability. The production of a water and air tight one‐chamber‐four‐well system can allow for multiple replicates per study and can allow for easy replication of the chamber itself by printing the number of chambers required for the study. Further investigation into the development of 3D printable cyclic stretch bioreactors is a worthwhile effort with future work for this bioreactor including addressing sealing or friction issues, the creation of an adaptable computer control unit with accompanying motor system, and cellularized scaffold testing. Support or Funding Information ‐The Hampden‐Sydney Honors Research Council and The Virginia Academy of Science