MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408810020 · doi:10.3390/polym17070852

Optimization Scheme for 3D Printing of PLA–PHBV–PCL Biodegradable Blends for Use in Orthopedic Casting

2025· article· en· W4408810020 on OpenAlexafffund
Md. Maniruzzaman A. Aziz, L. Beard, Shafahat Ali, Abdelkrem Eltaggaz, Ibrahim Deiab

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCastingMaterials science3D printingComposite materialScheme (mathematics)Orthopedic surgeryBiomedical engineeringEngineeringSurgeryMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three-dimensional printing technology offers significant advantages in the production of orthopedic casts, providing a promising alternative to conventional plaster and fiberglass materials. Polylactic acid (PLA) is widely used for this purpose; however, its adoption is limited due to poor mechanical properties, including high brittleness, low thermal stability, and limited elongation. These challenges can be mitigated by blending PLA with other biodegradable polymers. This study investigated a blend of PLA with poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV), a type of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), and polycaprolactone (PCL) for the development of 3D printed orthopedic casts. The key mechanical properties-tensile strength, percent elongation at break, Young's modulus, flexural strength, flexural modulus, and impact strength-were evaluated as a function of the printing parameters, including nozzle temperature, layer height, and raster angle. The grey relational analysis (GRA) approach was applied to optimize these mechanical properties. The optimal printing parameters were found to be a nozzle temperature of 180 °C, a layer height of 0.18 mm, and a raster angle of 0°, resulting in a tensile strength of 44.4 ± 4.4 MPa, an elongation at break of 68.5 ± 11.6%, a Young's modulus of 948.7 ± 25.1 MPa, a flexural strength of 54.6 ± 8.9 MPa, a flexural modulus of 1549.3 ± 141 MPa, and an impact strength of 80.77 ± 5.6 J/m. Statistical analysis using analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that for tensile strength, 50.18% was influenced by the raster angle, 26.38% by the layer height, and 18.92% by the nozzle temperature; for flexural strength, 69.81% was influenced by the raster angle, 20.67% by the layer height, and 3.53% by the nozzle temperature; and for impact strength, 75.11% was influenced by the raster angle, 13.16% by the layer height, and 4.45% by the nozzle temperature.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymersSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207