Article3D printing and additive manufacturing2025
Flexible 3D-Printable Materials for Application in Medical Research: A Comprehensive Comparison of Commercially Available Materials.
Article in 3D printing and additive manufacturing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large-scale manufacturing of precisely patterned flexible soft tissue implants with high porosity.Biofabrication · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Additive manufacturing has become an important tool in modern medicine with numerous applications such as therapy planning, medical device prototyping and testing, and basic research. While the range of available materials continues to grow, the field of elastic printable materials for medical applications has not been fully explored. Therefore, this study focuses on the comparison of six commercially available flexible printing materials regarding their usability in the medical field. Surface of printed parts for all materials were analyzed directly after printing by scanning electron microscopy. The mechanical behavior was evaluated by uniaxial tensile tests, shore A hardness, and vascular compliance analysis. The degradation effects of the solvents water, glycerin, and ethanol were analyzed over a period of 7 days. The impact of different sterilization protocols (steam, plasma, ethylene oxide) was determined by tensile testing and surface imaging. Cytotoxicity was evaluated by a WST-1 proliferation assay with human endothelial cells. Microscopic imaging revealed a uniform surface with characteristic topologies depending on the printing technique. Different sterilization techniques revealed good results, however, pure silicone material TrueSil
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.