ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Impact of Material Stiffness on Medial Arch Support and Stress Redistribution in 3D-Printed Insoles for Adult Acquired Flatfoot Deformity.
Article in Bioengineering (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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Adult acquired flatfoot deformity (AAFD) results from the collapse of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA), often managed conservatively with foot orthoses. While 3D printing enables rapid and cost-effective production of insoles, the biomechanical impact of different printing materials remains unclear. This study combined material testing, finite element (FE) simulation, and compression testing to evaluate four materials commonly used for 3D-printed insoles: PLA (polylactic acid), resin, EVA (ethylene vinyl acetate), and TPU (thermoplastic polyurethane). Tensile tests provided material properties for FE modeling of balanced standing using a validated healthy foot model. Outcome measures included MLA deformation (navicular drop), plantar stress distribution, and von Mises stress within the insole. A commercial semi-custom insole was tested for comparison. PLA and resin exhibited high stiffness (2228 and 880 MPa) and reduced navicular drop by 55-60%, compared with <30% reductions by EVA and TPU. Plantar stress distribution shifted from forefoot and hindfoot toward the midfoot, with PLA increasing midfoot load share to 38%. Compression testing confirmed that PLA and resin exhibited greater arch support ability than the semi-custom insole within a 10 mm displacement threshold. Material stiffness strongly influenced the biomechanical performance of 3D-printed insoles. Within this static simulation baseline, PLA and resin provided superior arch stabilization and stress redistribution compared with EVA, TPU, and a semi-custom reference. These findings suggest that material choice is critical to optimizing 3D-printed orthotic support, providing a valuable biomechanical baseline to guide future orthotic designs for flatfoot.
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.