Article3D printing in medicine2025
Multi-Site evaluation of a novel point-of-care 3D printing quality assurance protocol for a material jetting 3D printer.
Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2025. 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.
- From imaging to reality: 3D printing for craniopagus twins separation, a technical workflow and a center experience.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe maturation of 3D printing technologies has opened up a new space for patient advancements in healthcare from trainee education to patient specific medical devices. Point-of-care (POC) manufacturing, where model production is done on-site, includes multiple benefits such as enhanced communication, reduced lead time, and lower costs. However, the small scale of many POC manufacturing operations complicates their ability to establish quality assurance practices. This study presents a novel low-cost quality assurance protocol for POC 3D printing.
methodsFour hundred specially designed quality assurance cubes were printed across four material jetting printers (J5 Medijet, Stratasys, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, USA) at two large medical centers. Three inner dimension and three outer dimension measurements as well as edge angles were measured for every cube by trained research personnel. The delta and absolute error was calculated for each cube and then compared across variables (axis, material, inner vs. outer dimension, swath and machine/site/personnel) using ANOVA analysis.
resultsPrint axis and inner vs. outer dimension of the model produced statistically significant differences in error while there was no statistically significant difference in the error for material, print swath, or machine/site/personnel. For the print axes, the printers produced an average error of 26, 53, and 57 μm and the error at three sigma was found to be 100, 158, and 198 μm for the Z, R, and Theta axes, respectively.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that this novel protocol is both feasible and reliable for quality assurance in POC 3D printing across multiple sites. This protocol offers an adaptable framework that allows users to tailor the QA process to their specific needs. Through the comprehensive method, users can measure and identify all relevant factors that might introduce error into their printed product and then follow the most critical aspects for their situation across every print. The QA cubes produced via this protocol can provide guidance on print quality and alert users to unsatisfactory machine operation which could cause prints to fall outside of engineering and clinical tolerances.
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.