Cargando…

A Comparative Study for Material Selection in 3D Printing of Scoliosis Back Brace

In recent years, many research studies have focused on the application of 3D printing in the production of orthopaedic back braces. Several advantages, such as the ability to customise complex shapes, improved therapeutic effect and reduced production costs place this technology at the forefront in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ronca, Alfredo, Abbate, Valentina, Redaelli, Davide Felice, Storm, Fabio Alexander, Cesaro, Giacomo, De Capitani, Cristina, Sorrentino, Andrea, Colombo, Giorgio, Fraschini, Paolo, Ambrosio, Luigi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9413111/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36013868
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15165724
_version_ 1784775656166391808
author Ronca, Alfredo
Abbate, Valentina
Redaelli, Davide Felice
Storm, Fabio Alexander
Cesaro, Giacomo
De Capitani, Cristina
Sorrentino, Andrea
Colombo, Giorgio
Fraschini, Paolo
Ambrosio, Luigi
author_facet Ronca, Alfredo
Abbate, Valentina
Redaelli, Davide Felice
Storm, Fabio Alexander
Cesaro, Giacomo
De Capitani, Cristina
Sorrentino, Andrea
Colombo, Giorgio
Fraschini, Paolo
Ambrosio, Luigi
author_sort Ronca, Alfredo
collection PubMed
description In recent years, many research studies have focused on the application of 3D printing in the production of orthopaedic back braces. Several advantages, such as the ability to customise complex shapes, improved therapeutic effect and reduced production costs place this technology at the forefront in the ongoing evolution of the orthopaedic sector. In this work, four different materials, two of them poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and two of them poly(ethylene terephthalate glycol) (PETG), were characterised from a thermal, mechanical, rheological and morphological point of view. Our aim was to understand the effects of the material properties on the quality and functionality of a 3D-printed device. The specimens were cut from 3D-printed hemi-cylinders in two different orientation angles. Our results show that PETG-based samples have the best mechanical properties in terms of elastic modulus and elongation at break. The PLA-based samples demonstrated typical brittle behaviour, with elongation at break one order of magnitude lower. Impact tests demonstrated that the PETG-based samples had better properties in terms of energy absorption. Moreover, 3D-printed PETG samples demonstrated a better surface finishing with a more homogenous fibre–fibre interface. In summary, we demonstrate that the right choice of material and printing conditions are fundamental to satisfy the quality and functionality required for a scoliosis back brace.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9413111
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94131112022-08-27 A Comparative Study for Material Selection in 3D Printing of Scoliosis Back Brace Ronca, Alfredo Abbate, Valentina Redaelli, Davide Felice Storm, Fabio Alexander Cesaro, Giacomo De Capitani, Cristina Sorrentino, Andrea Colombo, Giorgio Fraschini, Paolo Ambrosio, Luigi Materials (Basel) Article In recent years, many research studies have focused on the application of 3D printing in the production of orthopaedic back braces. Several advantages, such as the ability to customise complex shapes, improved therapeutic effect and reduced production costs place this technology at the forefront in the ongoing evolution of the orthopaedic sector. In this work, four different materials, two of them poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and two of them poly(ethylene terephthalate glycol) (PETG), were characterised from a thermal, mechanical, rheological and morphological point of view. Our aim was to understand the effects of the material properties on the quality and functionality of a 3D-printed device. The specimens were cut from 3D-printed hemi-cylinders in two different orientation angles. Our results show that PETG-based samples have the best mechanical properties in terms of elastic modulus and elongation at break. The PLA-based samples demonstrated typical brittle behaviour, with elongation at break one order of magnitude lower. Impact tests demonstrated that the PETG-based samples had better properties in terms of energy absorption. Moreover, 3D-printed PETG samples demonstrated a better surface finishing with a more homogenous fibre–fibre interface. In summary, we demonstrate that the right choice of material and printing conditions are fundamental to satisfy the quality and functionality required for a scoliosis back brace. MDPI 2022-08-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9413111/ /pubmed/36013868 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15165724 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Ronca, Alfredo
Abbate, Valentina
Redaelli, Davide Felice
Storm, Fabio Alexander
Cesaro, Giacomo
De Capitani, Cristina
Sorrentino, Andrea
Colombo, Giorgio
Fraschini, Paolo
Ambrosio, Luigi
A Comparative Study for Material Selection in 3D Printing of Scoliosis Back Brace
title A Comparative Study for Material Selection in 3D Printing of Scoliosis Back Brace
title_full A Comparative Study for Material Selection in 3D Printing of Scoliosis Back Brace
title_fullStr A Comparative Study for Material Selection in 3D Printing of Scoliosis Back Brace
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Study for Material Selection in 3D Printing of Scoliosis Back Brace
title_short A Comparative Study for Material Selection in 3D Printing of Scoliosis Back Brace
title_sort comparative study for material selection in 3d printing of scoliosis back brace
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9413111/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36013868
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15165724
work_keys_str_mv AT roncaalfredo acomparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT abbatevalentina acomparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT redaellidavidefelice acomparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT stormfabioalexander acomparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT cesarogiacomo acomparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT decapitanicristina acomparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT sorrentinoandrea acomparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT colombogiorgio acomparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT fraschinipaolo acomparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT ambrosioluigi acomparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT roncaalfredo comparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT abbatevalentina comparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT redaellidavidefelice comparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT stormfabioalexander comparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT cesarogiacomo comparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT decapitanicristina comparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT sorrentinoandrea comparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT colombogiorgio comparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT fraschinipaolo comparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace
AT ambrosioluigi comparativestudyformaterialselectionin3dprintingofscoliosisbackbrace