The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improvement of quality of 3D printed objects by elimination of microscopic structural defects in fused deposition modeling
Open accessAbstract
Additive manufacturing with fused deposition modeling (FDM) is currently optimized for a wide range of research and commercial applications. The major disadvantage of FDM-created products is their low quality and structural defects (porosity), which impose an obstacle to utilizing them in functional prototyping and direct digital manufacturing of objects intended to contact with gases and liquids. This article describes a simple and efficient approach for assessing the quality of 3D printed objects. Using this approach it was shown that the wall permeability of a printed object depends on its geometric shape and is gradually reduced in a following series: cylinder > cube > pyramid > sphere > cone. Filament feed rate, wall geometry and G-code-defined wall structure were found as primary parameters that influence the quality of 3D-printed products. Optimization of these parameters led to an overall increase in quality and improvement of sealing properties. It was demonstrated that high quality of 3D printed objects can be achieved using routinely available printers and standard filaments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evaluation of 3D Printing and Its Potential Impact on Biotechnology and the Chemical Sciences
Gross, B. C., Erkal, J. L., Lockwood, S. Y., Chen, C., & Spence, D. M. (2014) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac403397r · Cited by 1,746
3D printed microfluidic devices: enablers and barriers
Waheed, S., Cabot, J. M., Macdonald, N. P., Lewis, T., Guijt, R. M., Paull, B., & Breadmore, M. C. (2016) · Lab on a Chip · doi:10.1039/c6lc00284f · Cited by 1,039
Recent Advances in Analytical Chemistry by 3D Printing
Gross, B., Lockwood, S. Y., & Spence, D. M. (2017) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.6b04344 · Cited by 359
Cited by
Wickramasinghe, S., Do, T., & Tran, P. (2020) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym12071529 · Cited by 1,052
Daminabo, S. C., Goel, S., Grammatikos, S. A., Nezhad, H. Y., & Thakur, V. K. (2020) · Materials Today Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.mtchem.2020.100248 · Cited by 567
Polymer 3D Printing Review: Materials, Process, and Design Strategies for Medical Applications
Arefin, A. M. E., Khatri, N. R., Kulkarni, N., & Egan, P. F. (2021) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym13091499 · Cited by 361
Spoerk, M., Holzer, C., & Gonzalez‐Gutierrez, J. (2020) · Journal of Applied Polymer Science · doi:10.1002/app.48545 · Cited by 317
Ghorbani, J., Koirala, P., Shen, Y.-L., & Tehrani, M. (2022) · Journal of Manufacturing Processes · doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2022.06.026 · Cited by 115
Metadata
- Authors
- Gordeev, E. G., Galushko, A. S., & Ananikov, V. P.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2018-06-07
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e0198370
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2805920171
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 13.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improvement of quality of 3D printed objects by elimination of microscopic structural defects in fused deposition modeling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0198370
- The paper
- Gordeev, E. G., Galushko, A. S., & Ananikov, V. P. (2018). Improvement of quality of 3D printed objects by elimination of microscopic structural defects in fused deposition modeling. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198370
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
