ArticleScientific reports2025
A general simulation-based study on printability of inks in direct ink writing.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Additive Manufacturing of High-Performance Polymers for Extreme Environments.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Computational approaches in bioprinting processes.Nature reviews bioengineering · 2026Article
- Fabrication of Copper Nanowires Highly Conductive and Flexible Circuits by Direct Ink Writing.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Direct ink writing (DIW)-based 3D printing process has gained significant attention due to its ability to accommodate versatile ink materials. However, the most challenging aspect of DIW is the development of inks with suitable printability. To address this, we demonstrate a numerical approach using the finite element method (FEM) to model the printability of inks. Five distinct ink models, including cement, thermoset polymer (epoxy), biopolymer (cellulose nanocrystals), and two hydrogel inks (alginate-based biopolymer and metallic powder), have been chosen to identify the key differentiating characteristics between inks with high and low printability. We focus on the shear thinning behavior, shape retention, and ink blockage region as key factors to evaluate printability and propose a printability grading parameter that demonstrates the qualitative ranking of inks based on their rheology. The study reveals that inks with better printability exhibit greater shear thinning behavior, yield shear strength, shape retention, and viscosity at a suitable inlet pressure. Among all the inks studied, we have found a specific concentration of cellulose nanocrystals (20 wt%) that demonstrates the best printability.
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.