Cargando…
Trueness of cone-beam computed tomography-derived skull models fabricated by different technology-based three-dimensional printers
BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a novel innovation in the field of craniomaxillofacial surgery, however, a lack of evidence exists related to the comparison of the trueness of skull models fabricated using different technology-based printers belonging to different cost segments. METHO...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10273646/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37328901 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03104-w |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a novel innovation in the field of craniomaxillofacial surgery, however, a lack of evidence exists related to the comparison of the trueness of skull models fabricated using different technology-based printers belonging to different cost segments. METHODS: A study was performed to investigate the trueness of cone-beam computed tomography-derived skull models fabricated using different technology based on low-, medium-, and high-cost 3D printers. Following the segmentation of a patient’s skull, the model was printed by: (i) a low-cost fused filament fabrication printer; (ii) a medium-cost stereolithography printer; and (iii) a high-cost material jetting printer. The fabricated models were later scanned by industrial computed tomography and superimposed onto the original reference virtual model by applying surface-based registration. A part comparison color-coded analysis was conducted for assessing the difference between the reference and scanned models. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni correction was applied for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The model printed with the low-cost fused filament fabrication printer showed the highest mean absolute error ([Formula: see text] ), whereas both medium-cost stereolithography-based and the high-cost material jetting models had an overall similar dimensional error of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] , respectively. Overall, the models printed with medium- and high-cost printers showed a significantly ([Formula: see text] ) lower error compared to the low-cost printer. CONCLUSIONS: Both stereolithography and material jetting based printers, belonging to the medium- and high-cost market segment, were able to replicate the skeletal anatomy with optimal trueness, which might be suitable for patient-specific treatment planning tasks in craniomaxillofacial surgery. In contrast, the low-cost fused filament fabrication printer could serve as a cost-effective alternative for anatomical education, and/or patient communication. |
---|