Fig. 3: DLP printability of the all-peptide hydrogel.

A Flat cylinder model for the determination of the optimal blue light exposure time per layer. B Prolongation of the light exposure time of each layer increased the printing time and reduced the efficiency. C Prolongation of the light exposure time of each layer increased the printing accuracy by forming a tangent angle of the corner closer to 90°. D Prolongation of the light exposure time of each layer increased the storage modulus (G′) of the printed cylinder hydrogel. n = 3 independent experiments. E Flat cylinder model for the determination of the optimal printing layer thickness. F Increase in layer thickness significantly reduced the printing time. G Increase in layer thickness slightly impaired the printing accuracy by forming a tangent angle of the corner further away from 90°. H Increase in layer thickness slightly impaired the storage modulus (G′) of the printed cylinder hydrogel. n = 3 independent experiments. I Comb model for the determination of printing resolution. J Real printed comb with the printing resolution reaching 0.5 mm because the gap at 0.5 mm was the minimum distance required to separate adjacent comb teeth. Scale bars = 5 mm. K Printing microtube models with the wall thickness at 0.5 mm. The wall thickness of real microtubes was measured to be 0.622 mm, reflecting that the printing error was 0.122 mm. Scale bar = 5 mm. L DLP printing of customized objects in different shapes, including hexagonal petals, microporous scaffolds, and ear models. Scale bars = 5 mm. The p values in the figures (D and H) are determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. Data are presented as mean ± SD. ns, not significant. R radius, H height, W width, T thickness. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.