Two resorbable polymers can sometimes be considered for the same medical device project. Yet, their properties and behaviour can be quite different.
Both PCL and PLCL are available as medical-grade filaments for resorbable applications. But how do you determine which one is more suitable for your project?
The answer depends less on which material is “better” and more on what you expect from the final structure.
PCL and PLCL: What are the differences for medical 3D printing?
PCL and PLCL are both resorbable polymers, but they offer different combinations of mechanical properties, flexibility and degradation profiles.
CAPROLACTISSE 100 [PCL] is a semi-flexible polymer known for its slow resorption. It can be relevant for applications where the structure needs to maintain its mechanical role over an extended period.
POLY-CAPROLACTISSE 70/30 [PLCL], on the other hand, is a copolymer of L-lactide and ε-caprolactone. Its glass transition temperature close to room temperature gives it a high degree of flexibility. Its resorption is reported between 12 and 24 months.
The first question should therefore not be: “Which material is better”, but rather:
“What behaviour does my structure need to provide throughout its intended functional lifetime?”
When should you choose PCL for a resorbable medical device?
PCL can be relevant when a project requires long-term structural stability.
CAPROLACTISSE 100 [PCL] has a reported resorption time of more than 36 months.
This slow resorption profile can be interesting for tissue engineering applications or structures where maintaining the architecture over an extended period is important.
PCL can also be considered when dimensional stability and long-term mechanical behaviour are key development criteria.
When is PLCL more relevant for a 3D resorbable structure?
PLCL follows a different approach.
POLY-CAPROLACTISSE 70/30 [PLCL] combines L-lactide and ε-caprolactone, resulting in a material with a high degree of flexibility.
Its reported resorption time is between 12 and 24 months.
This type of behaviour can be relevant when the structure needs to accommodate deformation or movement rather than maintain a more stable mechanical configuration over several years.
PLCL can therefore be considered for applications where flexibility is an important design parameter, including meshes and nerve reconstruction guides.
PCL vs PLCL: Which material matches your requirements?
A first comparison can help identify the main differences between the two materials:
| Property | PCL | PLCL 70/30 |
|---|---|---|
| Flexibility | ●● | ●●● |
| Elastic behaviour | ●● | ●●● |
| Resorption profile | >36 months | 12–24 months |
| Long-term structural support | ●●● | ●● |
| Flexible structures | ●● | ●●● |
| Tissue engineering applications | ✓ | ✓ |
These characteristics provide an initial orientation, but they should not be considered as a substitute for material and final-part characterisation.
The key question to ask
Choosing a resorbable polymer is not about looking for the material with the highest strength, the greatest flexibility, or the fastest degradation rate.
It is about finding the right balance between mechanical properties, structural behaviour, functional lifetime and resorption profile.
At Lattice Services, our range of resorbable filaments offers different options to address these requirements, from PCL and PLCL to PDO and PLGA.
The right material is, above all, the one that matches the needs of the device.
