Article3D printing in medicine2025
Uptake characteristics of MRI and CT contrast agents in 3D printing materials for vascular phantoms.
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. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo determine the reusability and robustness of three 3D-printing materials for anatomical vessels by evaluating their contrast agent uptake characteristics throughout different timeframes.
methodsThe tested samples were 3D-printed cylindrical samples that have the same diameter and wall thickness as a healthy adult aorta. Three different materials of varying degrees of Shore hardness were used to print these samples on a Stratasys J850 Prime PolyJet 3D printer (VeroClear, Agilus, and an Agilus/VeroClear mixture). Each sample was filled with one of three contrast agent dilutions or a control solution. Samples remained filled with their respective solution for one week, one day, or one hour. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) images were taken of all 54 samples. The CT and MR images were evaluated to determine the diameters of the samples, as well as the radiodensity/signal intensity of the samples. An Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was calculated to determine the degree of measurement variation between the investigators. Sample mass increase was determined by weighing samples before and after exposure to the solutions. A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was used to evaluate the contrast agent uptake behavior of the materials based on CT and MR imaging data.
resultsA small relative mass increase in the 3D-printed materials was noted: VeroClear showed mass increases of between 1.1% and 2.5%, which is in line with the respective data sheet. Agilus showed mass increases of 2.9% to 4.4%. In CT images, very small, but statistically significant effects were detected for VeroClear in the measured diameters (t = −2.31, p = 0.02) and the signal intensity (t = 3.40, p < 0.001). All other tested material combinations revealed no significant effects in comparison to the reference sample.
conclusionsThis study suggests that the tested materials using the Stratasys J850 3D printer can produce structures that do not absorb clinically detectable amounts of CT or MR imaging contrast agent solutions. Thus, the tested materials are suitable for the 3D printing of vascular phantoms that are filled with contrast agent solutions and can be reused in the time periods evaluated.
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.