ReviewPolymers2025
Accuracy and Powder Removal Limits in Multi Jet Fusion 3D Printing.
Review 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multi Jet Fusion (MJF) is a leading technology for producing functional polymer parts. However, it still faces challenges with dimensional accuracy and removing unfused powder from complex internal geometries. First, dimensional accuracy was mapped by producing 45 identical PA12 specimens on an HP MJF 4200 printer in a 5 × 9 layout across five vertical layers. The analysis revealed a consistent pattern: parts located in the central positions of the build volume exhibited the poorest accuracy, while those near the perimeter were the most precise, regardless of their vertical height. This spatial variation is attributed to non-uniform thermal control from the printer's adaptive lamp-thermal camera system. Second, the limits of powder removal from closed body-centered cubic (BCC) lattice structures were quantified. Using sandblasting and X-ray inspection, a strong inverse relationship was found between a lattice's relative density and the maximum thickness that could be thoroughly cleaned of powder. For example, low-density structures (ρ = 0.07) could be cleaned up to five layers deep, whereas high-density structures (ρ = 0.39-0.47) were limited to only 1.5-1.7 layers. These findings offer actionable guidelines for optimizing part placement and designing internal lattice structures for MJF technology. The key findings are the spatial variation in dimensional accuracy in MJF printing, where the central parts are the least accurate and perimeter parts are the most precise, and the inverse relationship between a lattice's relative density (ρ) and cleanable thickness. Specifically, low-density structures (ρ = 0.07) could be thoroughly cleaned up to five layers, while high-density ones (ρ = 0.39-0.47) were limited to approximately 1.5-1.7 layers. The layer thickness was a pre-designed parameter (2, 3, 4, and 5 layers), and powder removal was supported by using automated sandblasting followed by verification via industrial X-ray imaging.
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.