ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Feasibility Study of Manufacturing Hydraulic Fittings Using Additive Manufacturing Technologies: Comparative Analysis of FDM and SLA Methods.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper investigates the feasibility of manufacturing hydraulic fittings using additive manufacturing (AM) technologies, specifically Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) and Stereolithography (SLA). The study addresses the environmental challenge of material waste in conventional fitting production by exploring 3D printing as an alternative manufacturing method. Hydraulic fittings were designed using CAD software: SolidWorks 2022 and fabricated using FDM with PETG (Polyethene Terephthalate Glycol) material and SLA with UV-sensitive photopolymer resin. In present studies, on-destructive leak testing was conducted in accordance with PN-EN 1254-4 and PN-EN 1254, at pressures ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 bar. Dimensional accuracy analysis revealed shrinkage of approximately 1% for SLA-printed parts and 2% for FDM-printed parts. Microscopic examination at 50× and 80× magnification showed superior thread quality in SLA samples compared to FDM, which exhibited visible layer separation and material porosity. Leak testing demonstrated that while the brass reference fitting maintained complete seal integrity, both 3D-printed variants failed to achieve leak tightness under operational pressures, with structural failure occurring at 1.0 bar during tightening. The study showed that FDM with PETG material and SLA with UV-sensitive photopolymer resin, despite achieving acceptable dimensional tolerances (±1-2%), do not meet hydraulic leak tightness requirements at pressures exceeding 0.5 bar in their raw state after printing. The results suggest that alternative material formulations (e.g., carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK for FDM or epoxy engineering resins for SLA) warrant further investigation. Potential avenues for improvement include advanced surface treatment, optimization of printing parameters, and modifications to thread geometry to reduce interthread gaps.
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.