Cargando…

Not all 3D‐printed bolus is created equal: Variation between 3D‐printed polylactic acid (PLA) bolus samples sourced from external manufacturers

INTRODUCTION: Polylactic acid (PLA) is a promising material for customised bolus 3D‐printing in radiotherapy, however variations in printing techniques between external manufacturers could increase treatment uncertainties. This study aimed to assess consistency across various 3D‐printed PLA samples...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brown, Kerryn, Kupfer, Tom, Harris, Benjamin, Penso, Sam, Khor, Richard, Moseshvili, Eka
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9442296/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35506369
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.591
_version_ 1784782781791862784
author Brown, Kerryn
Kupfer, Tom
Harris, Benjamin
Penso, Sam
Khor, Richard
Moseshvili, Eka
author_facet Brown, Kerryn
Kupfer, Tom
Harris, Benjamin
Penso, Sam
Khor, Richard
Moseshvili, Eka
author_sort Brown, Kerryn
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Polylactic acid (PLA) is a promising material for customised bolus 3D‐printing in radiotherapy, however variations in printing techniques between external manufacturers could increase treatment uncertainties. This study aimed to assess consistency across various 3D‐printed PLA samples from different manufacturers. METHODS: Sample prints of dimensions 5 × 5 × 1 cm with 100% infill were acquired from multiple commercial 3D‐printing services. All samples were CT scanned to determine average Hounsfield unit (HU) values and physical densities. The coefficient of equivalent thickness (CET) was obtained for both photons and electrons and dose attenuation compared to TPS calculations in Elekta Monaco v5.11. RESULTS: Some samples showed warped edges up to 1.5 mm and extensive internal radiological defects only detectable with CT scanning. Physical densities ranged from 1.06 to 1.22 g cm(−3) and HU values ranged from −5.1 to 221.0 HU. Measured CET values varied from 0.95 to 1.17 and TPS dose calculations were consistent with the variation in CET. Electron R50 and R90 shifted by up to 2 mm for every 1 cm of printed bolus, a clinically significant finding. Photon surface dose varied by up to 3%, while depth doses were within 1%. CONCLUSIONS: 3D‐printed PLA can have considerable variability in density, HU and CET values between samples and manufacturers. Centres looking to outsource 3D‐printed bolus would benefit from clear, open communication with manufacturers and undertake stringent QA examination prior to implementation into the clinical environment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9442296
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94422962022-09-09 Not all 3D‐printed bolus is created equal: Variation between 3D‐printed polylactic acid (PLA) bolus samples sourced from external manufacturers Brown, Kerryn Kupfer, Tom Harris, Benjamin Penso, Sam Khor, Richard Moseshvili, Eka J Med Radiat Sci Original Articles INTRODUCTION: Polylactic acid (PLA) is a promising material for customised bolus 3D‐printing in radiotherapy, however variations in printing techniques between external manufacturers could increase treatment uncertainties. This study aimed to assess consistency across various 3D‐printed PLA samples from different manufacturers. METHODS: Sample prints of dimensions 5 × 5 × 1 cm with 100% infill were acquired from multiple commercial 3D‐printing services. All samples were CT scanned to determine average Hounsfield unit (HU) values and physical densities. The coefficient of equivalent thickness (CET) was obtained for both photons and electrons and dose attenuation compared to TPS calculations in Elekta Monaco v5.11. RESULTS: Some samples showed warped edges up to 1.5 mm and extensive internal radiological defects only detectable with CT scanning. Physical densities ranged from 1.06 to 1.22 g cm(−3) and HU values ranged from −5.1 to 221.0 HU. Measured CET values varied from 0.95 to 1.17 and TPS dose calculations were consistent with the variation in CET. Electron R50 and R90 shifted by up to 2 mm for every 1 cm of printed bolus, a clinically significant finding. Photon surface dose varied by up to 3%, while depth doses were within 1%. CONCLUSIONS: 3D‐printed PLA can have considerable variability in density, HU and CET values between samples and manufacturers. Centres looking to outsource 3D‐printed bolus would benefit from clear, open communication with manufacturers and undertake stringent QA examination prior to implementation into the clinical environment. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-05-04 2022-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9442296/ /pubmed/35506369 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.591 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Brown, Kerryn
Kupfer, Tom
Harris, Benjamin
Penso, Sam
Khor, Richard
Moseshvili, Eka
Not all 3D‐printed bolus is created equal: Variation between 3D‐printed polylactic acid (PLA) bolus samples sourced from external manufacturers
title Not all 3D‐printed bolus is created equal: Variation between 3D‐printed polylactic acid (PLA) bolus samples sourced from external manufacturers
title_full Not all 3D‐printed bolus is created equal: Variation between 3D‐printed polylactic acid (PLA) bolus samples sourced from external manufacturers
title_fullStr Not all 3D‐printed bolus is created equal: Variation between 3D‐printed polylactic acid (PLA) bolus samples sourced from external manufacturers
title_full_unstemmed Not all 3D‐printed bolus is created equal: Variation between 3D‐printed polylactic acid (PLA) bolus samples sourced from external manufacturers
title_short Not all 3D‐printed bolus is created equal: Variation between 3D‐printed polylactic acid (PLA) bolus samples sourced from external manufacturers
title_sort not all 3d‐printed bolus is created equal: variation between 3d‐printed polylactic acid (pla) bolus samples sourced from external manufacturers
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9442296/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35506369
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.591
work_keys_str_mv AT brownkerryn notall3dprintedbolusiscreatedequalvariationbetween3dprintedpolylacticacidplabolussamplessourcedfromexternalmanufacturers
AT kupfertom notall3dprintedbolusiscreatedequalvariationbetween3dprintedpolylacticacidplabolussamplessourcedfromexternalmanufacturers
AT harrisbenjamin notall3dprintedbolusiscreatedequalvariationbetween3dprintedpolylacticacidplabolussamplessourcedfromexternalmanufacturers
AT pensosam notall3dprintedbolusiscreatedequalvariationbetween3dprintedpolylacticacidplabolussamplessourcedfromexternalmanufacturers
AT khorrichard notall3dprintedbolusiscreatedequalvariationbetween3dprintedpolylacticacidplabolussamplessourcedfromexternalmanufacturers
AT moseshvilieka notall3dprintedbolusiscreatedequalvariationbetween3dprintedpolylacticacidplabolussamplessourcedfromexternalmanufacturers