ArticlePolymers2025
Development and Characterization of Biodegradable Polymer Filaments for Additive Manufacturing.
Article in Polymers, 2025. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, the authors focus on optimizing the processing parameters for the fabrication of biodegradable polymer filaments intended for subsequent 3D printing of biomedical structures and implants. Following extrusion and additive manufacturing, the produced materials underwent a comprehensive evaluation that included mechanical, microbiological, biofilm formation, and electron microscopy analyses. The complexity of these tests aimed to determine the potential of the developed materials for biomedical applications, particularly in the field of scaffold fabrication. At the initial stage, three types of filaments (technical designations 111, 145, and 146) were produced using Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) technology. These filaments were based on a PLA/PHB matrix with varying types and concentrations of plasticizers. Standardized destructive tensile and compressive mechanical tests were conducted using an MTS Insight 1 kN testing system equipped with an Instron 2620-601 extensometer. Among the tested samples, the filament labeled 111, composed of PLA/PHB thermoplastic starch and a plasticizer, exhibited the most favorable mechanical performance, with a Young's modulus of elasticity of 4.63 MPa for 100% infill. The filament labeled 146 had a Young's modulus of elasticity of 4.53 MPa for 100% infill and the material labeled 145 had a Young's modulus of elasticity of 1.45 MPa for 100% infill. Microbiological assessments were performed to evaluate the capacity of bacteria and fungi to colonize the material surfaces. During bacterial activity assessment, we observed biofilm formation on the examined sample surfaces of each material from the smooth and rough sides. The colony-forming units (CFUs) increased directly with the exposure time. For all samples from each material, the Log10 (CFU) value reached above 9.41 during 72 h of incubation for the activity of each type of bacteria (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.