Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of fluidic channels manufactured by different 3D printing technologies

From: The recent development and applications of fluidic channels by 3D printing

3D printing materials advantages limitations surface roughness resolution chip complexity
stereolithography photosensitive resin/polymers high resolution, good surface finish, little topological restriction small volume (1PP), slow build time (2PP), high optical absorption required, cytotoxic, low throughput ~2 μm 25–300 μm
< 1 μm for 2PP
selective laser sintering powders of metal, polymer, ceramics high resolution, fully automated non-transparent, remaining powder precursor in small cavities dependent on the powder size (on the order of 10–100 μm) 1–150 μm moderate
fused deposition modeling thermoplastics cheap, ease of support removal, little topological restriction, fully automated slow build time, low accuracy, non-transparent, poor gas permeability, 3–43 μm 100–400 μm low
inkjet photocurable polymers fast build time, multiple materials tedious removal of support, low accuracy < 1 μm 20–100 μm high
bioprinting bioink, hydrogels multiple materials low build time, low viscous solution, low accuracy 10–330 μm 5–100 μm high