Article3D printing in medicine2021
A focused simulation-based optimization of print time and material usage with respect to orientation, layer height and support settings for multi-pathological anatomical models in inverted vat photopolymerization 3D printing.
Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of the application of 3D-printed models to colorectal surgical training.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of Support Spacing on the Region-Specific Dimensional Accuracy of 3D-Printed Dental Models.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Trueness of 3D printed partial denture frameworks: build orientations and support structure density parameters.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2022Article
- Optimization of Digital Light Processing Three-Dimensional Printing of the Removable Partial Denture Frameworks; The Role of Build Angle and Support Structure Diameter.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Correction to Acknowledgement.3D printing in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background3D printing of anatomical models requires multi-factorial decision making for optimal model manufacturing. Due to the complex nature of the printing process, there are frequently multiple potentialities based on the desired end goal. The task of identifying the most optimal combination of print control variables is inherently subjective and rests on sound operator intuition. This study investigates the effect of orientation, layer and support settings on print time and material usage. This study also presents a quantitative optimization framework to jointly optimize print time and material usage as a function of those settings for multi-pathological anatomical models.
methodsSeven anatomical models representing different anatomical regions (cardiovascular, abdominal, neurological and maxillofacial) were selected for this study. A reference cube was also included in the simulations. Using PreForm print preparation software the print time and material usage was simulated for each model across 4 orientations, 2 layer heights, 2 support densities and 2 support tip sizes. A 90-10 weighted optimization was performed to identify the 5 most optimal treatment combinations that resulted in the lowest print time (90% weight) and material usage (10% weight) for each model.
resultsThe 0.1 mm layer height was uniformly the most optimal setting across all models. Layer height had the largest effect on print time. Orientation had a complex effect on both print time and material usage in certain models. The support density and the support tip size settings were found to have a relatively minor effect on both print time and material usage. Hollow models had a larger support volume fraction compared to solid models.
conclusionsThe quantitative optimization framework identified the 5 most optimal treatment combinations for each model using a 90-10 weighting for print time and material usage. The presented optimization framework could be adapted based on the individual circumstance of each 3D printing lab and/or to potentially incorporate additional response variables of interest.
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.