ArticleMicromachines2025
Extrusion-Based 3D Printing of Pharmaceuticals-Evaluating Polymer (Sodium Alginate, HPC, HPMC)-Based Ink's Suitability by Investigating Rheology.
Article in Micromachines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Development and optimization of asiaticoside co-crystal-loaded transdermal patch for topical therapy.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Comparative Formulation and Physicochemical Evaluation of Orodispersible Films Fabricated via Pneumatic and Syringe-Based 3D Printing.Pharmaceutical research · 2025Article
- Evaluating Swellable Cross-Linked Biopolymer Impact on Ink Rheology and Mechanical Properties of Drug-Contained 3D-Printed Thin Film.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Three-dimensional printing is promising in the pharmaceutical industry for personalized medicine, on-demand production, tailored drug loading, etc. Pressure-assisted microsyringe (PAM) printing is popular due to its low cost, simple operation, and compatibility with heat-sensitive drugs but is limited by ink formulations lacking the essential characteristics, impacting their performance. This study evaluates inks based on sodium alginate (SA), hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC H), and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC K100 and K4) for PAM 3D printing by analyzing their rheology. The formulations included the model drug Fenofibrate, functional excipients (e.g., mannitol, polyethylene glycol, etc.), and water or water-ethanol mixtures. Pills and thin films as an oral dosage were printed using a 410 μm nozzle, a 10 mm/s speed, a 50% infill density, and a 60 kPa pressure. Among the various formulated inks, only the ink containing 0.8% SA achieved successful prints with the desired shape fidelity, linked to its rheological properties, which were assessed using flow, amplitude sweep, and thixotropy tests. This study concludes that (i) an ink's rheological properties-viscosity, shear thinning, viscoelasticity, modulus, flow point, recovery, etc.-have to be considered to determine whether it will print well; (ii) printability is independent of the dosage form; and (iii) the optimal inks are viscoelastic solids with specific rheological traits. This research provides insights for developing polymer-based inks for effective PAM 3D printing in pharmaceuticals.
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.