- 01Reads project dataStages, timesheets, costs, tests and documents recorded in Paylists.
- 02Searches published workOpenAlex, Europe PMC, PubMed, arXiv, Crossref, OSTI, NASA NTRS, NIST and other sources.
- 03Recommends answersEach answer is supported by references for your team and R&D tax advisor to review.
What the R&D aim of the project is
Lister recommended answerTo establish a repeatable image-to-manufacture process for patient-specific PEEK implants while maintaining anatomical and dimensional accuracy.
Scientific or technological uncertainty
- 01
Describe exactly which uncertainties you need to resolve
Lister recommended answerWhether segmentation, CAD conversion, printing, post-processing and sterilisation can collectively remain within the required dimensional tolerance across different patient geometries.
- 02
Describe what made it a project to resolve a specified uncertainty
Lister recommended answerPatient-specific implants and PEEK printing were already known, but the combined effect of geometry, process parameters and post-processing on final anatomical accuracy could not be reliably predicted for the proposed workflow.
- 03
Describe the steps you plan to take to resolve them
Lister recommended answerCompare segmentation methods, print geometry variants, scan finished parts, measure CAD-to-part deviation and repeat representative geometries using independent builds.
- 04
What difficulties are foreseen for the project
Lister recommended answerComplex geometry, imaging resolution, thermal distortion, material shrinkage and sterilisation can each contribute to final dimensional error.
- 05
Information about any major changes to the aims, or new uncertainties that have been encountered, while running the project.
Lister recommended answerEarly prints may show localised distortion that requires changes to build orientation, support structures or compensation algorithms.
- 06
How the uncertainties and other challenges were overcome (or not).
Lister recommended answerThe team would refine the process and independently reproduce the final configuration across multiple representative geometries.
An advance in science or technology
- 01
A review of the current state of knowledge
Lister recommended answerEuropean clinical and manufacturing research had already demonstrated point-of-care and patient-specific PEEK implant production.
- 02
How the project sought an advance in a qualifying area of science or technology
Lister recommended answerThe project sought a repeatable manufacturing accuracy capability across a defined range of complex geometries beyond merely demonstrating that PEEK could be printed.
Result, conclusion and evidence
Result
Repeated builds demonstrated acceptable dimensional performance within the tested geometry and process envelope.
Conclusion
The technological advance would need to be limited to the demonstrated manufacturing envelope rather than presented as a new form of 3D printing generally.
Evidence still needed
CT settings, segmentation versions, CAD files, printer parameters, material batches, dimensional scans, failed prints and sterilisation results.
Supporting references
Sharma et al. (2021), patient-specific PEEK cranial implants.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ↗Laubach et al., clinical translation of patient-specific 3D-printed implants.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ↗Point-of-care manufacturing of patient-specific PEEK implants.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ↗