ArticleDiscover nano2026
A comparative study of air cushion and roll-to-plate pressing in wafer-level nanoimprint lithography.
Article in Discover nano, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nanoimprint lithography (NIL) has recently regained significant industrial momentum, driven by the burgeoning demand for high-resolution optical components, AR/VR devices, and advanced semiconductor fabrication. Among current wafer-level NIL strategies, Air Cushion Press (ACP) and Roll-to-Plate Press (R2P) represent two predominant mechanical approaches. This study provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of ACP and R2P to evaluate their efficacy in high-volume wafer manufacturing. Our findings demonstrate that the vacuum-assisted environment in ACP effectively mitigates air entrapment, enabling defect-free imprinting with a rapid cycle time of approximately one minute. Conversely, the R2P process, typically operated under atmospheric conditions, necessitates a protracted bonding phase-often lasting tens of minutes-to evacuate trapped air between the mold and the substrate. Furthermore, ACP achieves superior uniformity in both imprinting pressure and residual layer thickness (RLT), which is critical for maintaining pattern fidelity during subsequent etching processes. While the flexible molds used in both methods are prone to gradual deformation and feature distortion over repeated cycles, the extent of such degradation is significantly lower in ACP than in R2P. While R2P offers a cost-effective solution for large-area patterning on flexible substrates where post-etching is not required, ACP demonstrates clear technical superiority in throughput, uniformity, and precision for high-end wafer-level NIL applications.
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.