ArticleBiomicrofluidics2020
Adhesive bonding strategies to fabricate high-strength and transparent 3D printed microfluidic device.
Article in Biomicrofluidics, 2020. 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.
- Augmented 3D Printing for Multiscale Microphysiological Systems.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025Review
- Spheroid Engineering in Microfluidic Devices.ACS omega · 2023Review
- Utilizing Electrochemical-Based Sensing Approaches for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Samples: A Review.Biosensors · 2022Review
- Processing and Profile Control of Microhole Array for PDMS Mask with Femtosecond Laser.Micromachines · 2022Article
- Microfluidic-based virus detection methods for respiratory diseases.Emergent materials · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, the use of 3D printing technologies has become prevalent in microfluidic applications. Although these technologies enable low-cost, rapid, and easy fabrication of microfluidic devices, fabricated devices suffer from optical opaqueness that inhibits their use for microscopic imaging. This study investigates bonding strategies using polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) and printer resin as interlayer materials to fabricate high-strength optically transparent 3D-printed microfluidic devices. First, we fabricated microfluidic structures using a stereolithography 3D printer. We placed 3D-printed structures on interlayer materials coated surfaces. Then, we either let these 3D-printed structures rest on the coated slides or transferred them to new glass slides. We achieved bonding between 3D-printed structures and glass substrates with UV exposure for resin and with elevated temperature for PDMS interlayer materials. Bonding strength was investigated for different interlayer material thicknesses. We also analyzed the bright-field and fluorescence imaging capability of microfluidic devices fabricated using different bonding strategies. We achieve up to twofold (9.1 bar) improved bonding strength and comparable fluorescence sensitivity with respect to microfluidic devices fabricated using the traditional plasma activated PDMS-glass bonding method. Although stereolithography 3D printer allows fabrication of enclosed channels having dimensions down to ∼600
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.