Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

PLA-based ceramic composites for 3D printing of anthropomorphic simulators

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Additive manufacturing has become increasingly useful for the development of biomedical devices. Particularly, medical and dental studies have benefited from anthropomorphic simulators (phantoms) that can be 3D-printed using materials with radiopaque properties similar to human tissues. Among the various 3D printing techniques, material extrusion has gained significant attention due to its simplicity and cost-effectiveness. This study aimed to develop PLA (polylactic acid) composite filaments by incorporating natural hydroxyapatite, aluminum oxide, and zirconium oxide. These composites underwent thermal, morphological, and mechanical characterization, and their intensity in computed tomography was compared with that of human tissues. The zirconium oxide composites exhibited a maximum value of 184 Hounsfield Unit (HU), closely mimicking cortical bone, with a mere 6% weight fraction of ZrO\(_{2}\). Conversely, natural hydroxyapatite and aluminum oxide did not demonstrate any significant improvements over pure polymers for soft tissue applications. The influence of porosity on printed components was observed to decrease mechanical properties and X-ray intensity. The use of stearic acid as a surfactant helped to improve the distribution of ceramic powder within the polymer matrix. This resulted in better fluidity of the composites, facilitating successful 3D printing using the filament extrusion process. Overall, the results suggest that the newly developed PLA-based zirconia composite filament can be utilized to mimic cortical bone in anthropomorphic simulators for use in medical and dental studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

References

  1. Akindoyo JO, Beg MDH, Ghazali S et al (2018) Impact modified PLA-hydroxyapatite composites - thermo-mechanical properties. Compos Part A-Appl S 107:326–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2018.01.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arnold J, Sarkar K, Smith D (2021) 3D printed bismuth oxide-polylactic acid composites for radio-mimetic computed tomography spine phantoms. J Biomed Mater Res 109:789–796. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.34744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Askari M, Hutchins DA, Thomas PJ, et al (2020) Additive manufacturing of metamaterials: a review. additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf 36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101562

  4. ASTM International (2022) D 638-22 standard test method for tensile properties of plastics. ASTM pp 16. https://doi.org/10.1520/D0638-22

  5. Baltazar J, Torres PMC, Dias-de Oliveira J et al (2021) Influence of filament patterning in structural properties of dense alumina ceramics printed by robocasting. J Manuf Process 68:569–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.05.043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bazalova M, Carrier JF, Beaulieu L et al (2008) Dual-energy CT-based material extraction for tissue segmentation in monte carlo dose calculations. Phys Med Biol 53. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/9/015

  7. Berger MJ, Hubell JH, Seltzer SM, et al. (2010) Xcom: photon cross section database, version 1.5. NIST

  8. Brackett J, Cauthen D, Condon J et al (2022) The impact of infill percentage and layer height in small-scale material extrusion on porosity and tensile properties. Addit Manuf 58:103063. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDMA.2022.103063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Calafel I, Aguirresarobe RH, Peñas MI, et al. (2020) Searching for rheological conditions for FFF 3D printing with PVC based flexible compounds. Materials 13:178. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13010178

  10. Cano S, Gonzalez-Gutierrez J, Sapkota J et al (2019) Additive manufacturing of zirconia parts by fused filament fabrication and solvent debinding: selection of binder formulation. Addit Manuf 26:117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDMA.2019.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cloonan AJ, Shahmirzadi D, Li RX, et al. (2014) 3D-printed tissue-mimicking phantoms for medical imaging and computational validation applications. 3D Print Addit Manuf 1:14–27. https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2013.0010

  12. Cojocaru V, Frunzaverde D, C-OM, et al. (2022) The influence of the process parameters on the mechanical properties of PLA specimens produced by fused filament fabrication-a review. Polymers 14(5):886. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14050886

  13. Darling CJ, Curtis C, Sciacca BJ et al (2022) Fused filament fabrication of complex anatomical phantoms with infill-tunable image contrast. Addit Manuf 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2022.102695

  14. Del-Mazo-Barbara L, Ginebra MP (2021) Rheological characterisation of ceramic inks for 3D direct ink writing: a review. J Eur Ceram Soc 41:18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2021.08.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Faccio M, Thomazi E, Silva LR et al (2021) Efeito do ácido esteárico em scaffolds de alumina obtidos por manufatura aditiva usando o método de fabricação por filamento fundido. Cerâmica 67:486–497. https://doi.org/10.1590/0366-69132021673843182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fenyo-Pereira M (ed) (2013) Radiologia Odontológica e, Imaginologia. Santos, São Paulo

  17. Filippou V, Tsoumpas C (2018) Recent advances on the development of phantoms using 3D printing for imaging with CT, MRI, PET, SPECT, and ultrasound. Med Phys 45:740–760. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Finke B, Hesselbach J, Schütt A et al (2020) Influence of formulation parameters on the freeform extrusion process of ceramic pastes and resulting product properties. Addit Manuf 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.101005

  19. Francis V, Jain PK (2016) Experimental investigations on fused deposition modelling of polymer-layered silicate nanocomposite. Virtual Phys Protot 11:109–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2016.1172431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Geng P, Zhao J, Wu W et al (2019) Effects of extrusion speed and printing speed on the 3d printing stability of extruded peek filament. J Manuf Process 37:266–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.11.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gibson I, Rosen D, Stucker B (2015) Additive manufacturing technologies: 3D printing, rapid prototyping, and direct digital manufacturing. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Gorjan L, Galusca C, Sami M et al. (2020) Effect of stearic acid on rheological properties and printability of ethylene vinyl acetate based feedstocks for fused filament fabrication of alumina. Addit Manuf 36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101391

  23. Hasib AG, Niauzorau S, Xu W et al. (2021) Rheology scaling of spherical metal powders dispersed in thermoplastics and its correlation to the extrudability of filaments for 3D printing. Addit Manuf 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.101967

  24. Higgins M, Leung S, Radacsi N (2022) 3D printing surgical phantoms and their role in the visualization of medical procedures. Annal3D Print Med 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stlm.2022.100057

  25. Hnatkova E, Hausnerova B, & Filip P (2019) Evaluation of powder loading and flow properties of Al\(_{2}\)O\(_{3}\) ceramic injection molding feedstocks treated with stearic acid. Ceram Int 45. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CERAMINT.2019.06.273

  26. Hong D, Lee S, Kim GB, et al. (2020) Development of a CT imaging phantom of anthromorphic lung using fused deposition modeling 3D printing. Medicine (US) 99:8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000018617

  27. Hubbell J, Seltzer S (2004) X-ray mass attenuation coefficients. NIST Standard Reference Database. https://doi.org/10.18434/T48G6X

  28. Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Levin G (2000) Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Radiology 217:430–435. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.217.2.r00nv35430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ikram H, al Rashid A, Koç M (2022) Additive manufacturing of smart polymeric composites: Literature review and future perspectives. Polym Compos 43:6355–6380. https://doi.org/10.1002/PC.26948

  30. Irnstorfer N, Unger E, Hojreh A et al (2019) An anthropomorphic phantom representing a prematurely born neonate for digital x-ray imaging using 3D printing: proof of concept and comparison of image quality from different systems. Sci Rep 9:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-50925-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ivanova R, Kotsilkova R (2018) Rheological study of poly(lactic) acid nanocomposites with carbon nanotubes and graphene additives as a tool for materials characterization for 3d printing application. Appl Rheol 28. https://doi.org/10.3933/ApplRheol-28-54014

  32. Kim JS, Lee CS, Lee SW et al (2020) Fabrication and characterization of hollow glass beads-filled thermoplastic composite filament developed for material extrusion additive manufacturing. J Compos Mater 54:607–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998319863836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lim S, Kathuria H, Tan J et al (2018) 3d printed drug delivery and testing systems - a passing fad or the future? Adv Drug Deliver Rev 132:139–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2018.05.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Murali A, Vakkattil M, Parameswaran R (2023) Investigating the effect of processing parameters on mechanical behavior of 3d fused deposition modeling printed polylactic acid. J Mater Eng Perform 32:1089–1102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-022-07188-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Murariu M, Dubois P (2016) PLA composites: from production to properties. Adv Drug Deliver Rev 107:17–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDR.2016.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Oenning AC, Salmon B, de Faria Vasconcelos K et al. (2018) DIMITRA paediatric skull phantoms: development of age-specific paediatric models for dentomaxillofacial radiology research. Dentomaxillofac Rad 47. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20170285

  37. Oh SA, Kim MJ, Kang JS, et al. (2017) Feasibility of fabricating variable density phantoms using 3D printing for quality assurance (QA) in radiotherapy. Prog Med Phys 28:106–110. https://doi.org/10.14316/PMP.2017.28.3.106

  38. Parthasarathy J, Krishnamurthy R, Ostendorf A et al (2020) 3D printing with MRI in pediatric applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 51:1641–1658. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Peng E, Zhang D, Ding J (2018) Ceramic robocasting: recent achievements, potential, and future developments. Advanced Materials 30. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201802404

  40. Penumakala PK, Santo J, Thomas A (2020) A critical review on the fused deposition modeling of thermoplastic polymer composites. Compos Part B-Eng 201. https://doi.org/10.1002/10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108336

  41. Pereira FM, Canevarolo SV, Chinelatto MA (2019) Isothermal crystallization kinetics of biodegradable poly(lactic acid)/poly(\(\epsilon \)-caprolactone) blends compatibilized with low-molecular weight block copolymers. Polym Eng Sci 59:161–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/PEN.25019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Phan DD, Swain ZR, Mackay ME (2018) Rheological and heat transfer effects in fused filament fabrication. J Rheol 62:1097–1107. https://doi.org/10.1122/1.5022982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rajan K, Samykano M, Kadirgama K et al (2022) Fused deposition modeling: process, materials, parameters, properties, and applications. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 120:1531–1570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-08860-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ramkumar P, Rijwani T (2022) Additive manufacturing of metals and ceramics using hybrid fused filament fabrication. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 44:455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-022-03762-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ricotti R, Ciardo D, Pansini F et al (2017) Dosimetric characterization of 3d printed bolus at different infill percentage for external photon beam radiotherapy. Phys Med 39:25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Roque R, Barbosa GF, Guastaldi AC (2021) Design and 3D bioprinting of interconnected porous scaffolds for bone regeneration. an additive manufacturing approach. J Manuf Process 64:655–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JMAPRO.2021.01.057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rueda MM, Auscher MC, Fulchiron R et al (2017) Rheology and applications of highly filled polymers: a review of current understanding. Prog Polym Sci 66:22–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2016.12.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Santana L, Alves JL, Sabino Netto AdC et al. (2018) Estudo comparativo entre PETG e PLA para impressão 3D através de caracterização térmica, química e mecânica. Materia-Brazil 23. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-707620180004.0601

  49. Scaffaro R, Citarrella M, Catania A et al (2022) Green composites based on biodegradable polymers and anchovy (engraulis encrasicolus) waste suitable for 3d printing applications. Compos Sci Technol 230:109768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2022.109768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Shaikh SS, Nahar P, Shaikh SY, et al. (2021) Current perspectives of 3D printing in dental applications. Braz Dental Sci 24. https://doi.org/10.14295/bds.2021.v24i3.2481

  51. Shin J, Sandhu RS, Shih G (2017) Imaging properties of 3D printed materials: multi-energy CT of filament polymers. J Digit Imaging 30:572–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-017-9954-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sinha R, Sanchez A, Camara-Torres M et al (2021) Additive manufactured scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: physical characterization of thermoplastic composites with functional fillers. ACS Appl Polym Mater 3:3788–3799. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.1c00363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Solc J, Vrba T, Burianova L (2018) Tissue-equivalence of 3D-printed plastics for medical phantoms in radiology. Journal of Instrumentation 13. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/13/09/P09018

  54. Tack P, Victor J, Gemmel P et al. (2016) 3D-printing techniques in a medical setting: a systematic literature review. Biomed Eng Online 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12938-016-0236-4

  55. Vanaei H, Shirinbayan M, Deligant M et al (2020) Influence of process parameters on thermal and mechanical properties of polylactic acid fabricated by fused filament fabrication. Polym Eng Sci 60(8):1822–1831. https://doi.org/10.1002/PEN.25419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Vogiatzi T, Menz R, Verna C et al. (2022) Effect of field of view (FOV) positioning and shielding on radiation dose in paediatric CBCT. Dentomaxillofac Rad 51. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20210316

  57. Weng Z, Wang J, Senthil T et al (2016) Mechanical and thermal properties of ABS/montmorillonite nanocomposites for fused deposition modeling 3d printing. Mater Design 102:276–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATDES.2016.04.045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Wood S, Martins T, Ibrahim TS (2019) How to design and construct a 3D-printed human head phantom. J 3D Print Med 3:119–125. https://doi.org/10.2217/3dp-2019-0016

  59. Yadav A, Rohru P, Babbar RA Kumar, et al. (2022) Fused filament fabrication: a state-of-the-art review of the technology, materials, properties and defects. Int J Interac Design Manuf pp 1955–2505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-022-01026-5

  60. Yi Z, Yang J, Liu X, et al. (2020) Enhanced mechanical properties of poly(lactic acid) composites with ultrathin nanosheets of mxene modified by stearic acid. J Appl Polym Sci 137. https://doi.org/10.1002/APP.48621

  61. Zhu Y, Joralmon D, Shan W et al (2021) 3D printing biomimetic materials and structures for biomedical applications. Bio-Design Manuf 4:405–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/S42242-020-00117-0

  62. Čelko L, Gutiérrez-Cano V, Casas-Luna M, et al. (2021) Characterization of porosity and hollow defects in ceramic objects built by extrusion additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf 47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.102272

Download references

Acknowledgements

The support from the Brazilian Government Agencies Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)-grants 305528/2018-1 and 305253/2018-2, Programa de Apoio a Núcleos de Excelência (PRONEX), Fundação de Amparo á Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS), Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Technologia do Rio Grande do Sul (IFRS), and Universidade de Caxias do Sul (UCS) is gratefully acknowledged. This study was also financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiççoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior-Brasil (CAPES), Finance Code 001 and Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP). The authors would like to thank the Laboratório Central de Microscopia (LCMIC), Laboratório de Polímeros (LPol) da Universidade de Caxias do Sul, and Setor de Radiologia do Hospital Geral de Caxias do Sul. Thanks are also due to the Laboratório de Caracterização de Materiais Poliméricos do Instituto Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Campus Caxias do Sul.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Rio Grande do Sul (IFRS), Campus Caxias do Sul, Avelino Antônio de Souza, 1730, Caxias do Sul, 95043-700, RS, Brazil

    Eduardo Thomazi & Celso Roman Jr

  2. Graduate Program in Materials Science and Engineering (PPGMAT), University of Caxias do Sul (UCS), Francisco Getúlio Vargas, 1130, Caxias do Sul, 95070-560, RS, Brazil

    Eduardo Thomazi, Cláudio Antônio Perottoni & Janete Eunice Zorzi

  3. Graduate Program in Health Sciences (PPGCS), University of Caxias do Sul (UCS), Francisco Getúlio Vargas, 1130, Caxias do Sul, 95070-560, RS, Brazil

    Thiago Oliveira Gamba, Cláudio Antônio Perottoni & Janete Eunice Zorzi

  4. Surgery and Orthopedics Department, Dental School, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Ramiro Barcelos, 2492, Porto Alegre, 90035-003, RS, Brazil

    Thiago Oliveira Gamba

Authors
  1. Eduardo Thomazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Celso Roman Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thiago Oliveira Gamba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cláudio Antônio Perottoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Janete Eunice Zorzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology: E.T., C.A.P., and J.E.Z.; data curation and investigation: E.T., C.R.Jr., and T.O.G.; writing (original draft preparation): E.T.; writing (review and editing): E.T., C.R.Jr., T.O.G., C.A.P., and J.E.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eduardo Thomazi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thomazi, E., Roman, C., Gamba, T.O. et al. PLA-based ceramic composites for 3D printing of anthropomorphic simulators. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 128, 5289–5300 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-023-12206-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-023-12206-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation