Cargando…
A modern mold room: Meshing 3D surface scanning, digital design, and 3D printing with bolus fabrication
PURPOSE: This case series represents an initial experience with implementing 3‐dimensional (3D) surface scanning, digital design, and 3D printing for bolus fabrication for patients with complex surface anatomy where traditional approaches are challenging. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 10 patients requi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6753733/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31454148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12703 |
_version_ | 1783452950372286464 |
---|---|
author | Sasaki, David Kiyoshi McGeachy, Philip Alpuche Aviles, Jorge E. McCurdy, Boyd Koul, Rashmi Dubey, Arbind |
author_facet | Sasaki, David Kiyoshi McGeachy, Philip Alpuche Aviles, Jorge E. McCurdy, Boyd Koul, Rashmi Dubey, Arbind |
author_sort | Sasaki, David Kiyoshi |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: This case series represents an initial experience with implementing 3‐dimensional (3D) surface scanning, digital design, and 3D printing for bolus fabrication for patients with complex surface anatomy where traditional approaches are challenging. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 10 patients requiring bolus in regions with complex contours, bolus was designed digitally from 3D surface scanning data or computed tomography (CT) images using either a treatment planning system or mesh editing software. Boluses were printed using a fused deposition modeling printer with polylactic acid. Quality assurance tests were performed for each printed bolus to verify density and shape. RESULTS: For 9 of 10 patients, digitally designed boluses were used for treatment with no issues. In 1 case, the bolus was not used because dosimetric requirements were met without the bolus. QA tests revealed that the bulk density was within 3% of the reference value for 9 of 12 prints, and with more judicious selection of print settings this could be increased. For these 9 prints, density uniformity was as good as or better than our traditional sheet bolus material. The average shape error of the pieces was less than 0.5 mm, and no issues with fit or comfort were encountered during use. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that new technologies such as 3D surface scanning, digital design and 3D printing can be safely and effectively used to modernize bolus fabrication. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6753733 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67537332019-09-23 A modern mold room: Meshing 3D surface scanning, digital design, and 3D printing with bolus fabrication Sasaki, David Kiyoshi McGeachy, Philip Alpuche Aviles, Jorge E. McCurdy, Boyd Koul, Rashmi Dubey, Arbind J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: This case series represents an initial experience with implementing 3‐dimensional (3D) surface scanning, digital design, and 3D printing for bolus fabrication for patients with complex surface anatomy where traditional approaches are challenging. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 10 patients requiring bolus in regions with complex contours, bolus was designed digitally from 3D surface scanning data or computed tomography (CT) images using either a treatment planning system or mesh editing software. Boluses were printed using a fused deposition modeling printer with polylactic acid. Quality assurance tests were performed for each printed bolus to verify density and shape. RESULTS: For 9 of 10 patients, digitally designed boluses were used for treatment with no issues. In 1 case, the bolus was not used because dosimetric requirements were met without the bolus. QA tests revealed that the bulk density was within 3% of the reference value for 9 of 12 prints, and with more judicious selection of print settings this could be increased. For these 9 prints, density uniformity was as good as or better than our traditional sheet bolus material. The average shape error of the pieces was less than 0.5 mm, and no issues with fit or comfort were encountered during use. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that new technologies such as 3D surface scanning, digital design and 3D printing can be safely and effectively used to modernize bolus fabrication. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-08-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6753733/ /pubmed/31454148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12703 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Radiation Oncology Physics Sasaki, David Kiyoshi McGeachy, Philip Alpuche Aviles, Jorge E. McCurdy, Boyd Koul, Rashmi Dubey, Arbind A modern mold room: Meshing 3D surface scanning, digital design, and 3D printing with bolus fabrication |
title | A modern mold room: Meshing 3D surface scanning, digital design, and 3D printing with bolus fabrication |
title_full | A modern mold room: Meshing 3D surface scanning, digital design, and 3D printing with bolus fabrication |
title_fullStr | A modern mold room: Meshing 3D surface scanning, digital design, and 3D printing with bolus fabrication |
title_full_unstemmed | A modern mold room: Meshing 3D surface scanning, digital design, and 3D printing with bolus fabrication |
title_short | A modern mold room: Meshing 3D surface scanning, digital design, and 3D printing with bolus fabrication |
title_sort | modern mold room: meshing 3d surface scanning, digital design, and 3d printing with bolus fabrication |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6753733/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31454148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12703 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sasakidavidkiyoshi amodernmoldroommeshing3dsurfacescanningdigitaldesignand3dprintingwithbolusfabrication AT mcgeachyphilip amodernmoldroommeshing3dsurfacescanningdigitaldesignand3dprintingwithbolusfabrication AT alpucheavilesjorgee amodernmoldroommeshing3dsurfacescanningdigitaldesignand3dprintingwithbolusfabrication AT mccurdyboyd amodernmoldroommeshing3dsurfacescanningdigitaldesignand3dprintingwithbolusfabrication AT koulrashmi amodernmoldroommeshing3dsurfacescanningdigitaldesignand3dprintingwithbolusfabrication AT dubeyarbind amodernmoldroommeshing3dsurfacescanningdigitaldesignand3dprintingwithbolusfabrication AT sasakidavidkiyoshi modernmoldroommeshing3dsurfacescanningdigitaldesignand3dprintingwithbolusfabrication AT mcgeachyphilip modernmoldroommeshing3dsurfacescanningdigitaldesignand3dprintingwithbolusfabrication AT alpucheavilesjorgee modernmoldroommeshing3dsurfacescanningdigitaldesignand3dprintingwithbolusfabrication AT mccurdyboyd modernmoldroommeshing3dsurfacescanningdigitaldesignand3dprintingwithbolusfabrication AT koulrashmi modernmoldroommeshing3dsurfacescanningdigitaldesignand3dprintingwithbolusfabrication AT dubeyarbind modernmoldroommeshing3dsurfacescanningdigitaldesignand3dprintingwithbolusfabrication |