## 3 Results and Discussion
### Texture Profile of Printed Forms  
The printed cylinders were covered with plastic cups and stored overnight. The next day, the TPA provided the texture characteristics shown in Table 5. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & **Hardness** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cohesiveness**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Springiness**} & **Gumminess** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Resilience**} \\  & **[N]** & & & & \\ \hline PB & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.219 \(\pm\) 0.026 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.659 \(\pm\) 0.246 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.160 \(\pm\) 0.016 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.220 \(\pm\) 0.150 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ PBT & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.107 \(\pm\) 0.012 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.330 \(\pm\) 0.121 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 0.040 \(\pm\) 0.004 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.610 \(\pm\) 0.007 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ SB & 2.20 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.211 \(\pm\) 0.025 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.508 \(\pm\) 0.041 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 0.483 \(\pm\) 0.061 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.710 \(\pm\) 0.003 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ SBT & 0.55 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.053 \(\pm\) 0.006 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.127 \(\pm\) 0.006 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.029 \(\pm\) 0.004 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.390 \(\pm\) 0.008 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline WT & 1.50 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.344 \(\pm\) 0.044 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.520 \(\pm\) 0.008 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.770 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.792 \(\pm\) 0.004 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ WTT & 0.90 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.165 \(\pm\) 0.028 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.410 \(\pm\) 0.033 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.150 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.697 \(\pm\) 0.041 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ BT & 1.80 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.420 \(\pm\) 0.015 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.620 \(\pm\) 0.030 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.730 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.719 \(\pm\) 0.110 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ BTT & 1.10 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.248 \(\pm\) 0.057 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.400 \(\pm\) 0.050 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.270 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.713 \(\pm\) 0.032 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* PB—Polish buckwheat, PBT—treated Polish buckwheat SB—native Spanish buckwheat, SBT—treated Spanish buckwheat,; WT—native white teff, WTT—white teff treated, BT—brown teff treated, lower-case letters mean values are significantly different at \(p\leq 0.05\) in the column.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Texture parameters of solidified gels from native and MW-treated samples after 24 h.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & **Hardness** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cohesiveness**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Springiness**} & **Gumminess** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Resilience**} \\  & **[N]** & & & & [N] & \\ \hline PB & 0.58 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.100 \(\pm\) 0.016 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.473 \(\pm\) 0.139 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.050 \(\pm\) 0.006 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.220 \(\pm\) 0.150 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ PBT & 0.39 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.089 \(\pm\) 0.0  
The extrusion impact on the texture characteristics of the buckwheat and teff gels was studied using TPA profile analysis. Hardness seemed to be further affected by extrusion during printing, especially in buckwheat gels, while teff gels seemed to be more uniform in their results. Cohesiveness was not particularly impacted in the Polish buckwheat flour sample, as the result of MW treatment, oppositely to all the rest of the sample, were decreased. Again, the teff gel samples looked to be less affected during the 3D printing process, with a slight decrease after MW treatment. Results suggest that the MW treatment stabilized the viscoelastic characteristics of the native flour, reducing the elasticity changes and increasing the viscosity but enabling the more predictive behavior during external force (extrusion) application. During the extrusion stage, it is desirable to have ink in a sol-state with low viscosity for proper extrudability [40].