ArticlePolymers2025
Impact Absorption Behaviour of 3D-Printed Lattice Structures for Sportswear Applications.
Article in Polymers, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lattice structures have been widely studied in various fields due to their lightweight and high-energy absorption capabilities. In this study, we propose the use of lattice structures in the design of sports protective equipment for contact sports athletes. A total of six specimens were additively manufactured either with a bending-dominated rhombic dodecahedron (RD) structure or stretch-dominated re-entrant (RE) structure. Elastic resin was used to investigate the specimens' compressive strength and energy absorption, impact reduction, and flexural properties in comparison with those of conventional foam and rigid polyethylene (PU). Despite having a lower relative density, the RE structure exhibits greater stiffness, showing up to 40% greater hardness and averaging 30.5% higher bending rigidity compared with the RD structure. However, it unexpectedly shows less stability and strength under uniaxial loading, which is 3 to 6 times weaker when compared with the non-auxetic RD structure. Although conventional PU has higher loading than 3D-printed lattices, the lattice shows excellent bendability, which is only 1.5 to 3 times stiffer than that of foam. The 3D-printed lattice in this study shows an optimal improvement of 43% in terms of impact absorption compared with foam and a 2.3% improvement compared with PU. Amongst the six different unit cell dimensions and structures studied, the RD lattice with a cell size of 5 mm is the most promising candidate; it has superior elasticity, compressive strength, and impact resistance performance whether it is under low- or high-impact conditions. The findings of this study provide a basis for the development of 3D-printed lattice sports protective chest equipment, which is more comfortable and offers improved protection for contact sports players.
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.