Identifying a commercially-available 3D printing process that minimizes model distortion after annealing and autoclaving and the effect of steam sterilization on mechanical strength.

3D printing 3D printing materials Additive manufacturing Annealing Autoclave Medical devices Optimization Polylactic acid Sterilization Surgical instruments

Journal

3D printing in medicine
ISSN: 2365-6271
Titre abrégé: 3D Print Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721758

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Apr 2020
Historique:
received: 27 08 2019
accepted: 17 03 2020
entrez: 17 4 2020
pubmed: 17 4 2020
medline: 17 4 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Fused deposition modeling 3D printing is used in medicine for diverse purposes such as creating patient-specific anatomical models and surgical instruments. For use in the sterile surgical field, it is necessary to understand the mechanical behavior of these prints across 3D printing materials and after autoclaving. It has been previously understood that steam sterilization weakens polylactic acid, however, annealing heat treatment of polylactic acid increases its crystallinity and mechanical strength. We aim to identify an optimal and commercially available 3D printing process that minimizes distortion after annealing and autoclaving and to quantify mechanical strength after these interventions. Thirty millimeters cubes with four different infill geometries were 3D printed and subjected to hot water-bath annealing then immediate autoclaving. Seven commercially available 3D printing materials were tested to understand their mechanical behavior after intervention. The dimensions in the X, Y, and Z axes were measured before and after annealing, and again after subsequent autoclaving. Standard and strength-optimized Army-Navy retractor designs were printed using the 3D printing material and infill geometry that deformed the least. These retractors were subjected to annealing and autoclaving interventions and tested for differences in mechanical strength. For both the annealing and subsequent autoclaving intervention, the material and infill geometry that deformed the least, respectively, was Essentium PLA Gray and "grid". Standard retractors without intervention failed at 95 N +/- 2.4 N. Annealed retractors failed at 127.3 N +/- 10 N. Autoclave only retractors failed at 15.7 N +/- 1.4 N. Annealed then autoclaved retractors failed at 19.8 N +/- 3.1 N. Strength-optimized retractors, after the annealing then autoclaving intervention, failed at 164.8 N +/- 12.5 N. For 30 mm cubes, the 3D printing material and infill geometry that deformed the least, respectively, was Essentium PLA and "grid". Hot water-bath annealing results in increased 3D printed model strength, however autoclaving 3D prints markedly diminishes strength. Strength-optimized 3D printed PLA Army-Navy retractors overcome the strength limitation due to autoclaving.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Fused deposition modeling 3D printing is used in medicine for diverse purposes such as creating patient-specific anatomical models and surgical instruments. For use in the sterile surgical field, it is necessary to understand the mechanical behavior of these prints across 3D printing materials and after autoclaving. It has been previously understood that steam sterilization weakens polylactic acid, however, annealing heat treatment of polylactic acid increases its crystallinity and mechanical strength. We aim to identify an optimal and commercially available 3D printing process that minimizes distortion after annealing and autoclaving and to quantify mechanical strength after these interventions.
METHODS METHODS
Thirty millimeters cubes with four different infill geometries were 3D printed and subjected to hot water-bath annealing then immediate autoclaving. Seven commercially available 3D printing materials were tested to understand their mechanical behavior after intervention. The dimensions in the X, Y, and Z axes were measured before and after annealing, and again after subsequent autoclaving. Standard and strength-optimized Army-Navy retractor designs were printed using the 3D printing material and infill geometry that deformed the least. These retractors were subjected to annealing and autoclaving interventions and tested for differences in mechanical strength.
RESULTS RESULTS
For both the annealing and subsequent autoclaving intervention, the material and infill geometry that deformed the least, respectively, was Essentium PLA Gray and "grid". Standard retractors without intervention failed at 95 N +/- 2.4 N. Annealed retractors failed at 127.3 N +/- 10 N. Autoclave only retractors failed at 15.7 N +/- 1.4 N. Annealed then autoclaved retractors failed at 19.8 N +/- 3.1 N. Strength-optimized retractors, after the annealing then autoclaving intervention, failed at 164.8 N +/- 12.5 N.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
For 30 mm cubes, the 3D printing material and infill geometry that deformed the least, respectively, was Essentium PLA and "grid". Hot water-bath annealing results in increased 3D printed model strength, however autoclaving 3D prints markedly diminishes strength. Strength-optimized 3D printed PLA Army-Navy retractors overcome the strength limitation due to autoclaving.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32297041
doi: 10.1186/s41205-020-00062-9
pii: 10.1186/s41205-020-00062-9
pmc: PMC7161250
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

9

Références

J Thorac Imaging. 2016 Sep;31(5):253-72
pubmed: 27149367
Cancer Biol Med. 2016 Dec;13(4):443-451
pubmed: 28154775
J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:1439643
pubmed: 29065569
Orthop Res Rev. 2016 Oct 14;8:57-66
pubmed: 30774470
Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2017 Jun;10(2):89-98
pubmed: 28523082
Indian Heart J. 2016 Jan-Feb;68(1):108-9
pubmed: 26896278
Korean J Radiol. 2016 Mar-Apr;17(2):182-97
pubmed: 26957903
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jul-Sep;9(3):207-212
pubmed: 30202150
3D Print Med. 2019 Nov 21;5(1):16
pubmed: 31754879
J Appl Biomater. 1991 Spring;2(1):23-8
pubmed: 10150042
Front Surg. 2015 Jun 16;2:25
pubmed: 26137465
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Aug;46(8):946-957
pubmed: 28433213
Orthopedics. 2015 Nov;38(11):684-7
pubmed: 26558661
3D Print Med. 2018 Nov 21;4(1):11
pubmed: 30649688
Anat Sci Int. 2015 Jan;90(1):64-5
pubmed: 25287879
J Surg Res. 2015 Dec;199(2):512-22
pubmed: 26255224
EFORT Open Rev. 2017 Mar 13;1(5):121-127
pubmed: 28461938
Chest. 2016 May;149(5):1136-42
pubmed: 26976347
Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2018 Jul 30;9(3):
pubmed: 30089093
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2018 Dec;8(11):1069-1077
pubmed: 30701160
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014 Aug 26;55(8):5380-1
pubmed: 25159591

Auteurs

Joshua V Chen (JV)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. Joshua.chen2@ucsf.edu.

Kara S Tanaka (KS)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Alan B C Dang (ABC)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Department of Surgery, Orthopaedic Section, San Francisco VA Health Care System, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Alexis Dang (A)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Department of Surgery, Orthopaedic Section, San Francisco VA Health Care System, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Classifications MeSH