Author:
Wang Xiaotong,Shujaat Sohaib,Shaheen Eman,Ferraris Eleonora,Jacobs Reinhilde
Abstract
Abstract
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 ($$1.33\pm 0.24 \text{mm}$$
1.33
±
0.24
mm
), whereas both medium-cost stereolithography-based and the high-cost material jetting models had an overall similar dimensional error of $$0.07\pm 0.03 \text{mm}$$
0.07
±
0.03
mm
and $$0.07\pm 0.01 \text{mm}$$
0.07
±
0.01
mm
, respectively. Overall, the models printed with medium- and high-cost printers showed a significantly ($$p<0.01$$
p
<
0.01
) 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.
Funder
China Scholarship Council
Karolinska Institute
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference27 articles.
1. Chadha U, Abrol A, Vora NP, Tiwari A, Shanker SK, Selvaraj SK. Performance evaluation of 3D printing technologies: a review, recent advances, current challenges, and future directions. Progress in Additive Manufacturing. 2022;(2022):853–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-021-00257-4.
2. Ostaș D, Almășan O, Ileșan RR, Andrei V, Thieringer FM, Hedeșiu M, et al. Point-of-care virtual surgical planning and 3D printing in oral and cranio-maxillofacial surgery: a narrative review. J Clin Med. 2022;11:22.
3. Pillai S, Upadhyay A, Khayambashi P, Farooq I, Sabri H, Tarar M, et al. Dental 3d-printing: transferring art from the laboratories to the clinics. Polym (Basel). 2021;13(1):1–25.
4. Zoabi A, Redenski I, Oren D, Kasem A, Zigron A, Daoud S, et al. 3D Printing and virtual surgical planning in oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Clin Med. 2022;11(9):2385.
5. Meglioli M, Naveau A, Macaluso GM, Catros S. Correction to: 3D printed bone models in oral and craniomaxillofacial surgery: a systematic review. 3D Print Med. 2020;6(1):1–19.