ArticleBiomicrofluidics2021
Evaluation of 3D-printed molds for fabrication of non-planar microchannels.
Article in Biomicrofluidics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A mammary-specific microfluidic device for studying post-radiotherapy vascular-immune cell interactions.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Augmented 3D Printing for Multiscale Microphysiological Systems.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025Review
- Effect of Build Orientation on Surface Finish and Hydrodynamic Stability of Inkjet 3D-Printed Microfluidic Channels.Polymers · 2025Article
- Continuous Focusing of Particles by AC-Electroosmosis and Induced Dipole Interactions.Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids · 2024Article
- Effective and new technologies in kidney tissue engineering.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Facile microfabrication of three dimensional-patterned micromixers using additive manufacturing technology.Scientific reports · 2022Article
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
Replica obtained from micromolds patterned by simple photolithography has features with uniform heights, and attainable microchannels are thus quasi-two-dimensional. Recent progress in three-dimensional (3D) printing has enabled facile desktop fabrication of molds to replicate microchannels with varying heights. We investigated the replica obtained from four common techniques of 3D printing-fused deposition modeling, selective laser sintering, photo-polymer inkjet printing (PJ), and stereolithography (SL)-for the suitability to form microchannels in terms of the surface roughness inherent to the mechanism of 3D printing. There have been limited quantitative studies that focused on the surface roughness of a 3D-printed mold with different methods of 3D printing. We discussed that the surface roughness of the molds affected (1) transparency of the replica and (2) delamination pressure of poly(dimethylsiloxane) replica bonded to flat glass substrates. Thereafter, we quantified the accuracy of replication from 3D-printed molds by comparing the dimensions of the replicated parts to the designed dimensions and tested the ability to fabricate closely spaced microchannels. This study suggested that molds printed by PJ and SL printers were suitable for replica molding to fabricate microchannels with varying heights. The insight from this study shall be useful to fabricate 3D microchannels with controlled 3D patterns of flows guided by the geometry of the microchannels.
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.