To describe the fabrication and assembly of a vertically stacked dentin–pulp complex organ-on-a-chip device incorporating a human dentin disc and photolithography-fabricated microchannels, followed by dental pulp stem cell seeding and culture.
A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.
Method Article
To describe the fabrication and assembly of a vertically stacked dentin–pulp complex organ-on-a-chip device incorporating a human dentin disc and photolithography-fabricated microchannels, followed by dental pulp stem cell seeding and culture.
Conventional preclinical models used in dental research, including animal models and static cell cultures, present important limitations in reproducing the physiological conditions of the dentin–pulp interface and predicting human biological responses to dental biomaterials. Organ-on-a-chip (OoC) technology provides an alternative approach by enabling the recreation of tissue-specific microenvironments within controlled microfluidic systems. This manuscript describes a step-by-step protocol for the fabrication and assembly of a dentin–pulp complex OoC device incorporating a human dentin disc within a three-layer polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) microfluidic platform. The protocol includes dentin disc preparation, fabrication of microstructured molds using photolithography, PDMS casting and curing, plasma-assisted layer bonding, device assembly, leak testing, and dental pulp stem cell seeding under static culture conditions. Critical fabrication parameters influencing device performance are discussed, including control of PDMS layer thickness, plasma surface treatment, and integration of the dentin disc within the device to minimize leakage. Cell adhesion and viability within the device were evaluated using scanning electron microscopy and confocal live/dead staining. Representative results demonstrate successful integration of the dentin disc within the microfluidic assembly, maintenance of leak-free conditions, and adhesion of viable dental pulp stem cells to the dentin surface. This protocol provides a reproducible approach for the fabrication of a dentin–pulp complex OoC platform that may support future studies investigating cellular responses to dental biomaterials and microenvironmental stimuli.
Animal experimentation has long been instrumental in advancing the understanding of pathological and physiological processes and has played a central role in the early stages of drug development1. Over the course of the 20th century, human life expectancy increased substantially, and while it is not possible to precisely quantify the extent to which this improvement is attributable solely to animal research, it is widely acknowledged that many contemporary medical treatments have been developed or validated using animal models2. Notable examples include the development of vaccines against poliomyelitis, measles, and hepatitis B, the evaluation of the safety and efficacy of penicillin, and the production of insulin. In the field of dental and biomaterials research, these models have been critical for exploring the caries process, biology and regeneration of the dentin-pulp complex, and physiopathology of the periodontal tissues3,4.
Despite the extensive use of these methodologies, the current drug development pipeline continues to exhibit high failure rates, with many drug candidates failing during clinical trials despite demonstrating efficacy and safety in preclinical laboratory settings and animal models5. This discrepancy has been associated with interspecies differences that may limit the translational predictability of animal models owing to anatomical, genetic, and physiological differences between species6. In addition, the development of new therapeutic approaches remains time-consuming and costly7. Furthermore, conventional in vitro models predominantly employ simplistic two-dimensional (2D) monolayer cultures on non-physiological plastic substrates, failing to recapitulate the biochemical and physical cues, cell–cell interactions, and extracellular matrix (ECM) signaling present in the human oral cavity8,9. Although 2D models offer certain experimental advantages, they are inherently unable to recapitulate the complex interactions that occur among multiple components simultaneously, such as biofilms, biomaterials, dentin, and pulp cells10. Consequently, there is increasing interest in the development of alternative experimental platforms capable of more accurately reproducing human biological responses. In 2022, the FDA Modernization Act 2.0 removed the mandatory requirement for animal testing in the drug approval process and recognized the potential use of alternative platforms, including organ-on-a-chip (OoC) technologies, in preclinical research11.
An OoC is a microfluidic device designed to replicate the structure, function, and microenvironment of a specific organ or tissue component12. These devices are populated with living cells and tissues cultured within engineered microchannels that recapitulate key aspects of the physiological microenvironment to which cells are naturally exposed. Beyond structural mimicry, microchannels enable spatiotemporal control over the cellular environment and support the maintenance of tissue-specific functions, thereby providing experimental conditions that may more closely resemble in vivo physiology than conventional culture systems12. Of particular relevance, microchannels in OoC devices facilitate the controlled flow of culture medium, which exerts shear stress upon resident cells13. These mechanical stimuli influence cellular responses including adhesion, proliferation, migration, gene expression, and cell–cell interactions14,15. In addition, continuous medium flow contributes to maintenance of the microenvironment through nutrient supply and removal of metabolic waste products16. Furthermore, compared with conventional 2D cultures, some OoC platforms have been reported to support improved control of oxidative stress-related readouts, including intracellular reactive oxygen species and cell viability, in three-dimensional (3D) on-chip models17. OoC systems have therefore emerged as promising platforms for studying tissue physiology, biomaterial interactions, and disease processes under controlled experimental conditions18. In dental research, OoC technology has been progressively applied to model increasingly complex oral tissue interfaces19. Early tooth-on-a-chip platforms emulated the biomaterial–dentin–pulp interface20, while more advanced iterations have since incorporated vasculature and trigeminal innervation to more faithfully replicate the structural and functional complexity of the pulp-dentin complex21. Beyond the pulp, 3D models of immature root canals have enabled the assessment of endodontic irrigants and angiogenic sprouting on stem cells from the apical papilla22,23. At the periodontal level, gum-on-a-chip platforms have been employed to investigate host-microbe interactions and to evaluate the immunomodulatory potential of probiotics as therapeutic agents24, whereas periodontal ligament-on-chip devices have demonstrated how interstitial fluid flow modulates vascular network formation and the osteogenic differentiation of periodontal ligament stem cell spheroids25,26. Complementing these models, specialized oral mucosa-on-a-chip and dental implant-on-a-chip systems have further broadened the scope of dental microfluidic research by characterizing host-material interactions and the cytotoxicity of dental monomers under physiologically relevant conditions27,28.
While OoC systems have been increasingly applied to dental, oral, and craniofacial research, continued efforts toward standardization and reproducibility of fabrication workflows remain important. Several tooth-on-a-chip models have been reported in the literature20,29,30,31, demonstrating different device configurations and experimental applications. However, variations in device architecture, fabrication methods, incorporation of dentin, and reporting of experimental parameters may limit reproducibility and direct comparison between studies. In particular, differences in microchannel geometry, dentin integration strategies, and fabrication approaches may influence the biological and mechanical microenvironment within the device. Some reported models incorporate dentin to reproduce aspects of the dentin–pulp interface20,29,30, whereas others use alternative configurations31. In addition, fabrication methods such as photolithography, laser cutting, micromilling, and 3D printing each present specific advantages and limitations depending on the intended device design and application. Furthermore, a critical determinant of biological utility is the architectural orientation of the device, specifically whether the channels and dentin slice are arranged in a horizontal or vertical configuration19,32. In horizontally stacked configurations, compartments arranged side by side facilitate lateral compartmentalization and real-time visualization of cells, making them particularly well suited for modeling tissues with inherently lateral spatial organization, such as the periodontal complex24,32. However, this design is inherently limited in its capacity to recreate perpendicular biological interfaces, such as the biomaterial-dentin-pulp complex, as the lateral arrangement of compartments does not faithfully replicate the in vivo orientation of the dentin barrier between the cavity and the pulp20,32. Vertically stacked configurations address these limitations by superimposing two compartments along the y-axis, separated by a native dentin slice, enabling the simultaneous quantification of molecular transport across intact dentin and real-time monitoring of pulp cell responses measured in the outlet medium30. However, a recognized limitation of this orientation concerns cross-sectional imaging of the dentin-cell interface, as acquiring cross-sectional images of the dentin-cell interface within the same focal plane remains technically more challenging than in horizontally stacked configurations, where cells and extracellular matrices are arranged laterally. Although multiple dentin-pulp complex on-a-chip models have been reported in the literature, the majority adopt a horizontally stacked configuration in which compartments are arranged side by side within the same plane10,20,21,29, while relatively few have incorporated a native dentin slice within a vertically stacked configuration30. Nevertheless, variations in fabrication approaches and reporting parameters across these models continue to limit reproducibility and cross-study comparisons33. The present manuscript aims to improve methodological reproducibility by providing a detailed fabrication protocol for a vertically stacked tooth-on-a-chip device, thereby facilitating broader adoption of the platform within the dental research community.
This manuscript describes a step-by-step fabrication and assembly protocol for a vertically stacked dentin–pulp complex OoC device incorporating a human dentin disc within a three-layer polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) microfluidic platform fabricated using a photolithography-produced mold. The protocol also describes dental pulp stem cell seeding and culture within the device under static conditions.
Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Universidad de La Frontera for studies involving human samples.
1. Acquisition of dentin disk
NOTE: Prepare the device design before beginning the protocol (Figure 1A–1C).

Figure 1: Design and fabrication workflow of the dentin–pulp complex organ-on-a-chip (OoC) device. (A) Three-dimensional design of the device showing the three-layer architecture. (B) Top view of the device design with principal dimensions. (C) Lateral view of the three-layer device configuration. (D) Representative dentin disc prepared with an approximate thickness of 0.8 mm and lateral dimensions of approximately 5 mm × 5 mm. (E) Silicon master mold fabricated by photolithography and used for casting the top and bottom polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) layers. (F) Removal of a cured PDMS layer from the silicon mold following thermal polymerization. (G) Plasma treatment of the PDMS surface prior to layer bonding. (H) Final three-layer dentin–pulp complex OoC device assembled by plasma bonding and incorporating the dentin interface. (I) Assembled device connected to tubing for leakage testing and preparation for microfluidic experiments. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
2. Fabrication of the dentin–pulp complex OoC device
3. Evaluation of dental pulp stem cell adhesion and viability

Figure 2: Representative evaluation of dental pulp stem cell adhesion and viability within the dentin–pulp complex OoC device. (A) Scanning electron microscopy image showing adherent dental pulp stem cells (white asterisk) on the dentin surface after 24 h of static culture within the OoC device. After 24 h of culture, adherent cells covered 54.35 ± 0.92% of the dentin surface exposed to the microchannel. No cells are observed in the dentin region covered by PDMS (black asterisk), indicating effective sealing between device layers. Scale bar = 200 µm. (B) Confocal microscopy image showing viable dental pulp stem cells stained in green and adhered to the dentin surface (white arrows) after 24 h of static culture. Non-viable cells stained in red are also observed (blue arrows). Scale bar = 50 µm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.
Successful fabrication of the tooth-on-a-chip device followed the workflow illustrated in Figure 1A–1I, including dentin disc preparation (Figure 1D), fabrication of the photolithography-derived mold (Figure 1E), removal of cured PDMS layers (Figure 1F), plasma activation prior to bonding (Figure 1G), assembly of the final device (Figur...
Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.
This study describes a step-by-step protocol for the fabrication of a vertically stacked tooth-on-a-chip device incorporating dentin and dental pulp stem cells and demonstrates representative cell adhesion and viability within the device under static culture conditions. The protocol was developed to provide a reproducible workflow for the fabrication and assembly of a dentin–pulp complex OoC platform suitable for in vitro studies of the dentin interface. The establishment of such a workflow is particularly signific...
Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.
The authors declare no competing financial interests and have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
This work was supported by Project DIM24-0004 and Project PP24-0031, Dirección de Investigación, Universidad de La Frontera; FONDECYT Regular No. 1260116; and FONDECYT de Iniciación No. 11230701, National Agency for Research and Development (ANID), Chile.
Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.
| Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biological and chemical materials | |||
| Acetone | ExpertQ | SOLV 8 | Silicon wafer cleaning |
| Alpha MEM culture medium | Cytiva | SH30265.02 | Dental pulp stem cell culture medium |
| Chloramine (0.5%) | Merck | 7080-50-4 | Storage solution for dentin discs |
| Dental pulp stem cells | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | Primary cell culture. See Steps 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 |
| EDTA (10%) | Winkler | N2222158E | Smear layer removal |
| Epoxy-based negative photoresist | Gersteltec | GM1060 | Photolithography mold fabrication |
| Glutaraldehyde (2.5%) in 0.1 M Sorensen’s phosphate buffer | Sigma-Aldrich | 210908-06 | SEM fixation |
| Healthy human teeth (molars or premolars) | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | Human sample |
| Isopropanol | ExpertQ | SOLV 16 | Wafer cleaning, development stopping, and PDMS cleaning |
| LIVE/DEAD Viability Kit | Sigma-Aldrich | 451 | Fluorescence viability staining. |
| PBS (phosphate-buffered saline) | Corning | 46-013-CM | Washing and leakage testing |
| PDMS base and curing agent (polydimethylsiloxane) | Dow | Sylgard 184 | Device fabrication |
| PGMEA | Sigma Aldrich | 484431 | Photoresist development |
| Trypan blue | Sigma Aldrich | T8154-100ml | Cell viability assessment |
| Trypsin | Corning | 25-053-CI | Cell detachment |
| Ultrapure water | Cytiva | SH30529.01 | Washing solution |
| Consumables and labware | |||
| 19G syringe needles | Vmatic | VCB19050 | Connection of device with micropump or syringe |
| Biopsy punch (diameter: 1 mm) | Harris Unicore | WHAWB100073 | Inlet and outlet port fabrication |
| Cutting mat | Nicecool | Not Applicable | Surface protection during punching |
| Dental finishing discs (e.g., Sof-Lex) | 3M | Sof-Lex | Dentin polishing |
| Female Luer-to-barbed adapters | Runze Fluidics | RH-M016 | Tubing connection |
| Glass or plastic mixing stick | Duran | Not Applicable | PDMS mixing |
| Hypodermic syringes | Cranberry | pc-12246 | Cell seeding and leakage testing |
| Lint-free sterile gauze | Linderson | Not Applicable | Removal of punching debris |
| Male Luer adapters | Runze Fluidics | RH-G016 | Tubing connection |
| Mixing vessel | Duran | Not Applicable | PDMS preparation |
| Petri dish (140 mm × 20 mm) | Deltalab | 2000219 | Cell culture/incubation |
| Polytetrafluoroethylene base | CCTVal | Not Applicable | Intermediate dentin layer fabrication |
| Silicon wafer | Jiaozuo Commercial FineWin | Not Applicable | Mold fabrication |
| Silicone tube | Runze Fluidics | 96421 | Fluidic connection |
| T75 flask | Corning | 353136 | Dental pulp stem cell expansion |
| Well plate | SPL Life Sciences | 30006 | Confocal staining and imaging preparation |
| Equipment and instruments | |||
| Air dryer | METALPLAN | TITAN-040 | Compressed air drying |
| Compressed air source | SCHULZ | CSD-18.1 | Mold and surface cleaning |
| Confocal microscope | Olympus | Not Applicable | Model: FV1000 |
| Direct laser lithography system | Heidelberg | uPG 101 | Photoresist exposure |
| Environmental scanning electron microscope | Hitachi | Not Applicable | Model: Quanta 400 |
| High-speed handpiece | Nakanishi | Not Applicable | Model: Pana-max2 |
| Hot plate | LabTech | EH20A Plus | Wafer bake and photoresist bake |
| Laminar flow cabinet | BioBase | BBS8V1708313D | Device sterilization |
| Microfluidic pump | New Era | Not Applicable | Model: 1002X-ES. Leak testing at 10 µL/min |
| Microstructured mold (fabricated via photolithography) | CCTVal | Not Applicable | See Step 2.2 for mold fabrication specifications |
| Oven or incubator | Memmert | UN110 | PDMS curing at 50°C and bond consolidation at 75°C |
| Vacuum Plasma Cleaning Chamber | Fari Plasma | GD-5 | Wafer plasma activation |
| Handheld Corona Plasma | Aurora Pro Scientific | APS-CD-20AC | PDMS plasma activation |
| Ultrasonicator | Elma Sonic | S 10 (H) | Wafer cleaning |
| Vacuum chamber or desiccator (250 mm) | Winglass | Not Applicable | PDMS degassing |
| Vacuum pump | ROCKER | 300 | PDMS degassing |
Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.
This article has been published
Video Coming Soon