ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Fused Filament Fabrication and Computer Numerical Control Milling in Cultural Heritage Conservation.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
This paper reports a comparison between the advantages and disadvantages of fused filament fabrication (FFF) and computer numerical control (CNC) milling, when applied to a specific case of conservation of cultural heritage: the reproduction of four missing columns of a 17th-century tabernacle. To make the replica prototypes, European pine wood (the original material) was used for CNC milling, while polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG) was used for FFF printing. Neat materials were chemically and structurally characterized (FTIR, XRD, DSC, contact angle measurement, colorimetry, and bending tests) before and after artificial aging, in order to study their durability. The comparison showed that although both materials are subject to a decrease in crystallinity (an increase in amorphous bands in XRD diffractograms) and mechanical performance with aging, these characteristics are less evident in PETG (E = 1.13 ± 0.01 GPa and σ = 60.20 ± 2.11 MPa after aging), which retains water repellent (ca = 95.96 ± 5.56°) and colorimetric (∆E = 2.6) properties. Furthermore, the increase in flexural strain (%) in pine wood, from 3.71 ± 0.03% to 4.11 ± 0.02%, makes it not suitable for purpose. Both techniques were then used to produce the same column, showing that for this specific application CNC milling is quicker than FFF, but, at the same time, it is also much more expensive and produces a huge amount of waste material compared to FFF printing. Based on these results, it was assessed that FFF is more suitable for the replication of the specific column. For this reason, only the 3D-printed PETG column was used for the subsequent conservative restoration.
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.