Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36013868›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022

A Comparative Study for Material Selection in 3D Printing of Scoliosis Back Brace.

Alfredo Ronca, Valentina Abbate, Davide Felice Redaelli, Fabio Alexander Storm, Giacomo Cesaro, Cristina De Capitani, Andrea Sorrentino, Giorgio Colombo, Paolo Fraschini, Luigi Ambrosio

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06785207 (Rethinking Rigidity), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06785207 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Rethinking Rigidity: Development of a 3D-Printed Scoliosis Brace With Varying Flexibility

TypeinterventionalSponsorBaylor College of MedicineRan2025 to 2026Enrolled5ConditionsScoliosis Idiopathic Adolescent TreatmentArms3D-printed scoliosis brace
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Dynamic Bonds Reinforced Polyamide Elastomer for Biomedical Orthosis.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alfredo RoncaInstitute of Polymers, Composites and Biomaterials (IPCB), National Research Council of Italy, Via Previati 1/C, 23900 Lecco, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6658-004X
Valentina AbbateInstitute of Polymers, Composites and Biomaterials (IPCB), National Research Council of Italy, Via Previati 1/C, 23900 Lecco, Italy.
Davide Felice RedaelliInstitute of Intelligent Industrial Systems and Technologies for Advanced Manufacturing (STIIMA) National Research Council of Italy, Via Previati 1/C, 23900 Lecco, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8513-8222
Fabio Alexander StormScientific Institute IRCCS E. Medea, Via Don Luigi Monza 20, 23842 Bosisio Parini, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5977-8090
Giacomo CesaroInstitute of Polymers, Composites and Biomaterials (IPCB), National Research Council of Italy, Via Campi Flegrei, 34, 80078 Pozzuoli, Italy.
Cristina De CapitaniInstitute of Polymers, Composites and Biomaterials (IPCB), National Research Council of Italy, Via Previati 1/C, 23900 Lecco, Italy.
Andrea SorrentinoInstitute of Polymers, Composites and Biomaterials (IPCB), National Research Council of Italy, Via Previati 1/C, 23900 Lecco, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1048-3002
Giorgio ColomboDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Via G. La Masa, 1, 20156 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9999-8960
Paolo FraschiniScientific Institute IRCCS E. Medea, Via Don Luigi Monza 20, 23842 Bosisio Parini, Italy.
Luigi AmbrosioInstitute of Polymers, Composites and Biomaterials (IPCB), National Research Council of Italy, Via Campi Flegrei, 34, 80078 Pozzuoli, Italy.
National Research Council · ITIRCCS Eugenio Medea · ITPolitecnico di Milano · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, many research studies have focused on the application of 3D printing in the production of orthopaedic back braces. Several advantages, such as the ability to customise complex shapes, improved therapeutic effect and reduced production costs place this technology at the forefront in the ongoing evolution of the orthopaedic sector. In this work, four different materials, two of them poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and two of them poly(ethylene terephthalate glycol) (PETG), were characterised from a thermal, mechanical, rheological and morphological point of view. Our aim was to understand the effects of the material properties on the quality and functionality of a 3D-printed device. The specimens were cut from 3D-printed hemi-cylinders in two different orientation angles. Our results show that PETG-based samples have the best mechanical properties in terms of elastic modulus and elongation at break. The PLA-based samples demonstrated typical brittle behaviour, with elongation at break one order of magnitude lower. Impact tests demonstrated that the PETG-based samples had better properties in terms of energy absorption. Moreover, 3D-printed PETG samples demonstrated a better surface finishing with a more homogenous fibre-fibre interface. In summary, we demonstrate that the right choice of material and printing conditions are fundamental to satisfy the quality and functionality required for a scoliosis back brace.

Indexed as

additive manufacturingadvanced material selectionfunctional characterisationsorthopaedic back braces

Identifiers

PMID36013868
PMCPMC9413111
OpenAlexW4292566612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.