ArticleScientific reports2026
Analysis of 3D printed longitudinal Flatfoot pads with lattice structures using various microfoaming filament.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
Purpose of this study is to develop longitudinal flatfoot pads using 3D printing technology for support and treatment of the arch. By applying various materials and designs to the pads, the most effective condition was confirmed. The design of the 3D models was inspired by commercially available wool (WL) based pads, and fabrication was carried out through fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printing. To manufacture products with different hardness levels, five lattice structures (Voronoi, tetrahedral, kagome, rhombic, and icosahedral) as well as a solid (SL) structure were applied. For materials, thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), lightweight thermoplastic polyurethane (LW-TPU) and lightweight polylactic acid (LW-PLA) were used to produce flatfoot pads with various lattice configurations. The manufactured 3D printed longitudinal flatfoot pads were first analyzed in terms of morphology and compressive properties. Subsequently, two selected structures were evaluated under both static standing and walking conditions using plantar pressure analysis to identify the most suitable manufacturing conditions for flatfoot orthotic applications. The results showed that, in terms of morphological and compressive properties, ICO-H lattice exhibited superior strength, whereas VOR provided higher flexibility with reduced strength. These mechanical properties contributed to plantar pressure responses during both static and walking motions. In plantar pressure analysis, LW-PLA flatfoot pads exhibited improved pressure distribution and arch support by increasing contact area. In conclusion, 3D printed longitudinal flatfoot pads using LW-PLA pads improved contact area and redistributed midfoot pressure, while 3D printed longitudinal flatfoot pads using LW-TPU provided superior outcomes by reducing localized loading and enhancing arch support. Notably, Icosahedral lattices with LW-PLA designs were most effective for arch stabilization.
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.