PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 29, 2026Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids0 citationsOpen Access

Sinterability of binder-jetted scaffolds of bioactive glasses with different crystallization tendencies

View Full Paper
CBCarsten BlaeßQNQ NawazEVErtugrul Varlik

Key Points

  • The study aims to evaluate the sinterability and properties of binder-jetted scaffolds made from bioactive glasses.
  • Investigated scaffolds using heating microscopy, DTA, optical and electron microscopy, and XRD.
  • Compared 3D-printed scaffolds with uniaxially pressed compact counterparts.
  • Measured relative densities, shrinkage, and bending strengths.
  • 3D-printed scaffolds exhibited lower initial relative densities, requiring more time for densification.
  • BG 13–93 scaffolds achieved bending strengths similar to bulk samples, while BG F3 scaffolds had about 30% less strength.
  • In vitro tests confirmed cytocompatibility of (<32 µm)-scaffolds with pre-osteoblasts.

Abstract

The sinterability of scaffolds, 3D-printed by binder jetting, and their uniaxially pressed compact counterparts made from the bioactive glasses BG 13–93 and BG F3 was investigated with heating microscopy, DTA, optical and electron microscopy, and XRD. As the 3D-printed specimens had lower initial relative densities, more shrinkage and more time to reach full densification were needed. In the case of the slow-crystallizing BG 13–93, this delay did not provoke crystallization-induced sinter retardation. For the more readily crystallizing BG F3, however, a final relative density > 95% was reached only for the particle size fraction <32 µm. For this particle size fraction, the BG 13–93 scaffolds reached bending strengths quite similar to those measured on bulk glass samples, whereas BG F3 scaffolds reached about 30% less. In vitro cell viability tests on (<32 µm)-scaffolds proved their cytocompatibility with pre-osteoblasts on both BGs.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Blaeß et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69f154a4879cb923c4944d40https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2026.124135
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Low‐temperature sintered boron‐doped S53P4 bioactive glass scaffolds fabricated by robocasting2025
  2. 2Pore graded borosilicate bioactive glass scaffolds: in vitro dissolution and cytocompatibility2024 · 3 citations
  3. 3Processing and cytocompatibility of Cu-doped and undoped fluoride-containing bioactive glasses2024 · 4 citations
  4. 4Comparative mechanical characterisation of 13–93 bioactive glass and hybrid scaffolds for bone regeneration2026
  5. 5Fabrication of Bioglass 58S 3D macroporous scaffolds, using a PMMA monolith template, to improve cell viability2024 · 1 citations