Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29649231›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Application of quality by design for 3D printed bone prostheses and scaffolds.

Daniel Martinez-Marquez, Ali Mirnajafizadeh, Christopher P Carty, Rodney A Stewart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Impact of industry 4.0 to create advancements in orthopaedics.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Daniel Martinez-MarquezSchool of Engineering, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Ali MirnajafizadehMolecular Cell Biomechanics Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America.
Christopher P CartySchool of Allied Health Sciences and Innovations in Health Technology, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Rodney A StewartSchool of Engineering, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6013-3505

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

3D printing is an emergent manufacturing technology recently being applied in the medical field for the development of custom bone prostheses and scaffolds. However, successful industry transformation to this new design and manufacturing approach requires technology integration, concurrent multi-disciplinary collaboration, and a robust quality management framework. This latter change enabler is the focus of this study. While a number of comprehensive quality frameworks have been developed in recent decades to ensure that the manufacturing of medical devices produces reliable products, they are centred on the traditional context of standardised manufacturing techniques. The advent of 3D printing technologies and the prospects for mass customisation provides significant market opportunities, but also presents a serious challenge to regulatory bodies tasked with managing and assuring product quality and safety. Before 3D printing bone prostheses and scaffolds can gain traction, industry stakeholders, such as regulators, clients, medical practitioners, insurers, lawyers, and manufacturers, would all require a high degree of confidence that customised manufacturing can achieve the same quality outcomes as standardised manufacturing. A Quality by Design (QbD) approach to custom 3D printed prostheses can help to ensure that products are designed and manufactured correctly from the beginning without errors. This paper reports on the adaptation of the QbD approach for the development process of 3D printed custom bone prosthesis and scaffolds. This was achieved through the identification of the Critical Quality Attributes of such products, and an extensive review of different design and fabrication methods for 3D printed bone prostheses. Research outcomes include the development of a comprehensive design and fabrication process flow diagram, and categorised risks associated with the design and fabrication processes of such products. An extensive systematic literature review and post-hoc evaluation survey with experts was completed to evaluate the likely effectiveness of the herein suggested QbD framework.

Indexed as

Bone and BonesPrinting, Three-DimensionalTissue ScaffoldsProsthesis DesignQuality ControlRisk AssessmentSterilization

Identifiers

PMID29649231
PMCPMC5896968

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.