ArticleJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine2018
3D powder printed tetracalcium phosphate scaffold with phytic acid binder: fabrication, microstructure and in situ X-Ray tomography analysis of compressive failure.
Article in Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computed Tomography as a Characterization Tool for Engineered Scaffolds with Biomedical Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Effects of surface area and topography on 3D printed tricalcium phosphate scaffolds for bone grafting applications.Additive manufacturing · 2021Article
- Probing Ink-Powder Interactions during 3D Binder Jet Printing Using Time-Resolved X-ray Imaging.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2020Article
- 3D Printing of Bioceramic Scaffolds-Barriers to the Clinical Translation: From Promise to Reality, and Future Perspectives.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Additive Manufacturing for Guided Bone Regeneration: A Perspective for Alveolar Ridge Augmentation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the important aspects in 3D powder printing (3DPP) is the selection of binder for a specific material composition to produce scaffolds with desired microstructure and physico-chemical properties. To this end, a new powder-binder combination, namely tetracalcium phosphate (TTCP) and phytic acid (IP6) was investigated at ambient temperature, for low load bearing application. A minimal deviation (<200 µm, w.r.t. computer aided design) was observed in the final sample through optimization of 3DPP process, along with minimum strut and macro-pore size of 200 and 750 µm, respectively. Importantly, the printed scaffolds exhibited compressive strength of 4-8.5 MPa (in the range of cancellous bone) and in vitro dissolution experiments in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) upto one month revealed gradual degradation in strength property. The TTCP scaffolds are characterized to be moderately porous (~40%) with high interconnectivity, which is essential for vascularization and good osteoconductivity. Another major aim of this study was to demonstrate the failure mechanism of 3D powder-printed scaffolds using monotonic and intermittent compression coupled with micro-computed tomography (µCT) imaging. Analyzing these results, we have demonstrated the origin of crack generation and propagation under compressive loading in relation to the unique microstructure, obtained through 3DPP. These findings enable us to acquire a deeper insight of the relationship between structural attributes and failure behavior, to further tailor the 3D powder printing process for ceramic biomaterials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.