ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2022
Not all 3D-printed bolus is created equal: Variation between 3D-printed polylactic acid (PLA) bolus samples sourced from external manufacturers.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A review on radiological properties of fused deposition modelling material for three-dimensional printing in proton and light ion beam therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Review
- A multicentre audit of the geometric accuracy and water equivalence of 3D printed thermoplastic objects for use in radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Analysis of the application of 3D-printed personalized positioning fixation in nasopharyngeal carcinoma radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Additive manufacturing of patient specific bolus for radiotherapy: large scale production and quality assurance.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPolylactic acid (PLA) is a promising material for customised bolus 3D-printing in radiotherapy, however variations in printing techniques between external manufacturers could increase treatment uncertainties. This study aimed to assess consistency across various 3D-printed PLA samples from different manufacturers.
methodsSample prints of dimensions 5 × 5 × 1 cm with 100% infill were acquired from multiple commercial 3D-printing services. All samples were CT scanned to determine average Hounsfield unit (HU) values and physical densities. The coefficient of equivalent thickness (CET) was obtained for both photons and electrons and dose attenuation compared to TPS calculations in Elekta Monaco v5.11.
resultsSome samples showed warped edges up to 1.5 mm and extensive internal radiological defects only detectable with CT scanning. Physical densities ranged from 1.06 to 1.22 g cm
conclusions3D-printed PLA can have considerable variability in density, HU and CET values between samples and manufacturers. Centres looking to outsource 3D-printed bolus would benefit from clear, open communication with manufacturers and undertake stringent QA examination prior to implementation into the clinical environment.
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.