ArticleJournal of biomedical materials research. Part A2024
3D printing modality effect: Distinct printing outcomes dependent on selective laser sintering (SLS) and melt extrusion.
Article in Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
A direct and comprehensive comparative study on different 3D printing modalities was performed. We employed two representative 3D printing modalities, laser- and extrusion-based, which are currently used to produce patient-specific medical implants for clinical translation, to assess how these two different 3D printing modalities affect printing outcomes. The same solid and porous constructs were created from the same biomaterial, a blend of 96% poly-ε-caprolactone (PCL) and 4% hydroxyapatite (HA), using two different 3D printing modalities. Constructs were analyzed to assess their printing characteristics, including morphological, mechanical, and biological properties. We also performed an in vitro accelerated degradation study to compare their degradation behaviors. Despite the same input material, the 3D constructs created from different 3D printing modalities showed distinct differences in morphology, surface roughness and internal void fraction, which resulted in different mechanical properties and cell responses. In addition, the constructs exhibited different degradation rates depending on the 3D printing modalities. Given that each 3D printing modality has inherent characteristics that impact printing outcomes and ultimately implant performance, understanding the characteristics is crucial in selecting the 3D printing modality to create reliable biomedical implants.
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.