Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37768399›Full record

Article3D printing in medicine2023

Medical 3D printing with polyjet technology: effect of material type and printing orientation on printability, surface structure and cytotoxicity.

Karl H Schneider, Gunpreet Oberoi, Ewald Unger, Klara Janjic, Sabrina Rohringer, Stefan Heber, Hermann Agis, Andreas Schedle, Herbert Kiss, Bruno K Podesser and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Batteryless implantable device with built-in mechanical clock for automated and precisely timed drug administration.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    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

13 authors.

Karl H SchneiderCenter for Biomedical Research and Translational Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Gunpreet OberoiCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Ewald UngerCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Klara JanjicUniversity Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Sensengasse 2a, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Sabrina RohringerCenter for Biomedical Research and Translational Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Stefan HeberInstitute of Physiology, Center for Physiology and Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Schwarzspanierstraße 17, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Hermann AgisUniversity Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Sensengasse 2a, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Andreas SchedleUniversity Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Sensengasse 2a, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Herbert KissDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Obstetrics and Feto-Maternal Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Bruno K PodesserCenter for Biomedical Research and Translational Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Reinhard WindhagerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Karl Chiari Lab for Orthopaedic Biology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Stefan ToegelDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Karl Chiari Lab for Orthopaedic Biology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. stefan.toegel@meduniwien.ac.at.
Francesco MoscatoLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Cardiovascular Research, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft 858060
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to its high printing resolution and ability to print multiple materials simultaneously, inkjet technology has found wide application in medicine. However, the biological safety of 3D-printed objects is not always guaranteed due to residues of uncured resins or support materials and must therefore be verified. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of standard assessment methods for determining the quality and properties of polyjet-printed scaffolds in terms of their dimensional accuracy, surface topography, and cytotoxic potential.Standardized 3D-printed samples were produced in two printing orientations (horizontal or vertical). Printing accuracy and surface roughness was assessed by size measurements, VR-5200 3D optical profilometer dimensional analysis, and scanning electron microscopy. Cytotoxicity tests were performed with a representative cell line (L929) in a comparative laboratory study. Individual experiments were performed with primary cells from clinically relevant tissues and with a Toxdent cytotoxicity assay.Dimensional measurements of printed discs indicated high print accuracy and reproducibility. Print accuracy was highest when specimens were printed in horizontal direction. In all cytotoxicity tests, the estimated mean cell viability was well above 70% (p < 0.0001) regardless of material and printing direction, confirming the low cytotoxicity of the final 3D-printed objects.

Indexed as

Additive manufacturingCytotoxicityInkjetMedical 3D printing

Identifiers

PMID37768399
PMCPMC10540425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.