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 |
_version_ | 1785059694758330368 |
---|---|
author | Wang, Xiaotong Shujaat, Sohaib Shaheen, Eman Ferraris, Eleonora Jacobs, Reinhilde |
author_facet | Wang, Xiaotong Shujaat, Sohaib Shaheen, Eman Ferraris, Eleonora Jacobs, Reinhilde |
author_sort | Wang, Xiaotong |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10273646 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102736462023-06-17 Trueness of cone-beam computed tomography-derived skull models fabricated by different technology-based three-dimensional printers Wang, Xiaotong Shujaat, Sohaib Shaheen, Eman Ferraris, Eleonora Jacobs, Reinhilde BMC Oral Health Research 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. BioMed Central 2023-06-16 /pmc/articles/PMC10273646/ /pubmed/37328901 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03104-w Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Wang, Xiaotong Shujaat, Sohaib Shaheen, Eman Ferraris, Eleonora Jacobs, Reinhilde Trueness of cone-beam computed tomography-derived skull models fabricated by different technology-based three-dimensional printers |
title | Trueness of cone-beam computed tomography-derived skull models fabricated by different technology-based three-dimensional printers |
title_full | Trueness of cone-beam computed tomography-derived skull models fabricated by different technology-based three-dimensional printers |
title_fullStr | Trueness of cone-beam computed tomography-derived skull models fabricated by different technology-based three-dimensional printers |
title_full_unstemmed | Trueness of cone-beam computed tomography-derived skull models fabricated by different technology-based three-dimensional printers |
title_short | Trueness of cone-beam computed tomography-derived skull models fabricated by different technology-based three-dimensional printers |
title_sort | trueness of cone-beam computed tomography-derived skull models fabricated by different technology-based three-dimensional printers |
topic | Research |
url | 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 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wangxiaotong truenessofconebeamcomputedtomographyderivedskullmodelsfabricatedbydifferenttechnologybasedthreedimensionalprinters AT shujaatsohaib truenessofconebeamcomputedtomographyderivedskullmodelsfabricatedbydifferenttechnologybasedthreedimensionalprinters AT shaheeneman truenessofconebeamcomputedtomographyderivedskullmodelsfabricatedbydifferenttechnologybasedthreedimensionalprinters AT ferrariseleonora truenessofconebeamcomputedtomographyderivedskullmodelsfabricatedbydifferenttechnologybasedthreedimensionalprinters AT jacobsreinhilde truenessofconebeamcomputedtomographyderivedskullmodelsfabricatedbydifferenttechnologybasedthreedimensionalprinters |