ArticleGels (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Evaluation of Fused Deposition Modeling Materials for 3D-Printed Container of Dosimetric Polymer Gel.
Article in Gels (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate dosimetric verification is becoming increasingly important in radiotherapy. Although polymer gel dosimetry may be useful for verifying complex 3D dose distributions, it has limitations for clinical application due to its strong reactivity with oxygen and other contaminants. Therefore, it is important that the material of the gel storage container blocks reaction with external contaminants. In this study, we tested the effect of air and the chemical permeability of various polymer-based 3D printing materials that can be used as gel containers. A methacrylic acid, gelatin, and tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium chloride gel was used. Five types of printing materials that can be applied to the fused deposition modeling (FDM)-type 3D printer were compared: acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), co-polyester (CPE), polycarbonate (PC), polylactic acid (PLA), and polypropylene (PP) (reference: glass vial). The map of R2 (1/T2) relaxation rates for each material, obtained from magnetic resonance imaging scans, was analyzed. Additionally, response histograms and dose calibration curves from the R2 map were evaluated. The R2 distribution showed that CPE had sharper boundaries than the other materials, and the profile gradient of CPE was also closest to the reference vial. Histograms and dose calibration showed that CPE provided the most homogeneous and the highest relative response of 83.5%, with 8.6% root mean square error, compared with the reference vial. These results indicate that CPE is a reasonable material for the FDM-type 3D printing gel container.
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.