ArticlePloS one2018
Application of quality by design for 3D printed bone prostheses and scaffolds.
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.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioactive PLA Filament with Antibacterial and Ion-Releasing Properties for Additive Manufacturing of Bone Scaffolds: QbD-Guided Development.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- Translational Progress and Clinical Challenges in Bioengineered Bone and Joint Repair.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Integration of multi-modal monitoring for dynamic control of large-scale 3D tissue bioreactors.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A hybrid innovation method based on quality by design and agile scrum paradigms for the development of medicinal products.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- AI-driven 3D bioprinting for regenerative medicine: From bench to bedside.Bioactive materials · 2025Review
- Nanoformulations in Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Applications: Green Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Three-Dimensional Printing of Graphene Oxide/Poly-L-Lactic Acid Scaffolds Using Fischer-Koch Modeling.Polymers · 2023Article
- Virtual reality and 3D printing in clinical anesthesia: a case series of two years' experience in a single tertiary medical centre.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2023Article
- Legal issues and underexplored data protection in medical 3D printing: A scoping review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Additively manufactured porous scaffolds by design for treatment of bone defects.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- Expanding Quality by Design Principles to Support 3D Printed Medical Device Development Following the Renewed Regulatory Framework in Europe.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- A robust, autonomous, volumetric quality assurance method for 3D printed porous scaffolds.3D printing in medicine · 2022Article
- Three-Dimensional Printing of a Hybrid Bioceramic and Biopolymer Porous Scaffold for Promoting Bone Regeneration Potential.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Application of low-dose CT to the creation of 3D-printed kidney and perinephric tissue models for laparoscopic nephrectomy.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Topological, Mechanical and Biological Properties of Ti6Al4V Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Regeneration Fabricated with Reused Powders via Electron Beam Melting.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- 3D Printing for Hip Implant Applications: A Review.Polymers · 2020Review
- Exploring Macroporosity of Additively Manufactured Titanium Metamaterials for Bone Regeneration with Quality by Design: A Systematic Literature Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Impact of industry 4.0 to create advancements in orthopaedics.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2020Article
- What would you like to print? Students' opinions on the use of 3D printing technology in medicine.PloS one · 2020Article
- Development of 18 Quality Control Gates for Additive Manufacturing of Error Free Patient-Specific Implants.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.