ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2026
Investigation of the most suitable 3D printing method and tissue equivalent materials for mimicking glandular-adipose tissues for production of breast phantom.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, the usability of masked stereolithography (MSLA) and fused filament fabrication (FFF) type printers to produce breast phantom is investigated. ABS, PET, PLA+, PVA and TPU-95 A filaments are used on FFF type printer with infill ratios between 70 and 100%; ABS-like, PLA and PMMA-like resins are used on SLA type printer with infill ratio 100% to tissue equivalent materials. The materials' CT scans are taken at 80, 100 and 120 kVp and the Hounsfield Units (HU) dependency on the infill ratio for each filament and resin is investigated. The materials' physical densities are measured; electron densities and effective atomic numbers are calculated. The suitability of the materials for mimicking adipose, glandular and skin tissue investigated in terms of HU value, physical density, electron density and effective atomic number. It is found that MSLA type printer is not eligible for printing breast tissue equivalent materials as the common resins have higher physical density and it is not possible to lower physical density by infill ratio. However, FFF type printer technology is more eligible for mimicking breast tissue. While ABS is suitable only for mimicking adipose tissue, PET, PLA+, PVA and TPU-95 A filaments can be used to produce adipose, glandular and skin tissues by just changing infill ratio. For production of a breast phantom via FFF printing, PET and PVA among the tested filament materials are preferable over the properties of PLA + and TPU-95 A due to their proper hydrogen(H) and carbon contents (C), and other physical and radiological properties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42900307What 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.