Trueness of Cone-beam Computed Tomography-derived Skull Models Fabricated by Different Technology-based Three-dimensional Printers

Overview

Journal BMC Oral Health

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2023 Jun 16

PMID 37328901

Authors

Xiaotong Wang

Sohaib Shujaat

Eman Shaheen

Eleonora Ferraris

Reinhilde Jacobs

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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 ([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.

Citing Articles

Dimensional Accuracy Assessment of Medical Anatomical Models Produced by Hospital-Based Fused Deposition Modeling 3D Printer.

Wendo K, Behets C, Barbier O, Herman B, Schubert T, Raucent B J Imaging. 2025; 11(2).

PMID: 39997541 PMC: 11856956. DOI: 10.3390/jimaging11020039.

Machine learning assisted 5-part tooth segmentation method for CBCT-based dental age estimation in adults.

Merdietio Boedi R, Shepherd S, Oscandar F, Franco A, Manica S J Forensic Odontostomatol. 2024; 42(1):22-29.

PMID: 38742569 PMC: 11154092. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.11061543.

References

George E, Liacouras P, Rybicki F, Mitsouras D . Measuring and Establishing the Accuracy and Reproducibility of 3D Printed Medical Models. Radiographics. 2017; 37(5):1424-1450. PMC: 5621728. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2017160165. View

Asaumi J, Kawai N, Honda Y, Shigehara H, Wakasa T, Kishi K . Comparison of three-dimensional computed tomography with rapid prototype models in the management of coronoid hyperplasia. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2001; 30(6):330-5. DOI: 10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600646. View

Czyzewski W, Jachimczyk J, Hoffman Z, Szymoniuk M, Litak J, Maciejewski M . Low-Cost Cranioplasty-A Systematic Review of 3D Printing in Medicine. Materials (Basel). 2022; 15(14). PMC: 9315853. DOI: 10.3390/ma15144731. View

Tian Y, Chen C, Xu X, Wang J, Hou X, Li K . A Review of 3D Printing in Dentistry: Technologies, Affecting Factors, and Applications. Scanning. 2021; 2021:9950131. PMC: 8313360. DOI: 10.1155/2021/9950131. View

Jin Z, Li Y, Yu K, Liu L, Fu J, Yao X . 3D Printing of Physical Organ Models: Recent Developments and Challenges. Adv Sci (Weinh). 2021; 8(17):e2101394. PMC: 8425903. DOI: 10.1002/advs.202101394. View

Kamio T, Onda T . Fused Deposition Modeling 3D Printing in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: Problems and Solutions. Cureus. 2022; 14(9):e28906. PMC: 9451925. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28906. View

Prendergast M, Burdick J . Recent Advances in Enabling Technologies in 3D Printing for Precision Medicine. Adv Mater. 2019; 32(13):e1902516. DOI: 10.1002/adma.201902516. View

Kamio T, Hayashi K, Onda T, Takaki T, Shibahara T, Yakushiji T . Utilizing a low-cost desktop 3D printer to develop a "one-stop 3D printing lab" for oral and maxillofacial surgery and dentistry fields. 3D Print Med. 2018; 4(1):6. PMC: 6097791. DOI: 10.1186/s41205-018-0028-5. View

Narita M, Takaki T, Shibahara T, Iwamoto M, Yakushiji T, Kamio T . Utilization of desktop 3D printer-fabricated "Cost-Effective" 3D models in orthognathic surgery. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020; 42(1):24. PMC: 7395922. DOI: 10.1186/s40902-020-00269-0. View

10.

Zoabi A, Redenski I, Oren D, Kasem A, Zigron A, Daoud S . 3D Printing and Virtual Surgical Planning in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. J Clin Med. 2022; 11(9). PMC: 9104292. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092385. View

11.

Meglioli M, Naveau A, Macaluso G, Catros S . Correction to: 3D printed bone models in oral and craniomaxillofacial surgery: a systematic review. 3D Print Med. 2020; 6(1):36. PMC: 7713336. DOI: 10.1186/s41205-020-00088-z. View

12.

Wang X, Shujaat S, Shaheen E, Jacobs R . Accuracy of desktop versus professional 3D printers for maxillofacial model production. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2021; 112:103741. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103741. View

13.

Ravi P, Chepelev L, Stichweh G, Jones B, Rybicki F . Medical 3D Printing Dimensional Accuracy for Multi-pathological Anatomical Models 3D Printed Using Material Extrusion. J Digit Imaging. 2022; 35(3):613-622. PMC: 9156585. DOI: 10.1007/s10278-022-00614-x. View

14.

Khorsandi D, Fahimipour A, Abasian P, Saber S, Seyedi M, Ghanavati S . 3D and 4D printing in dentistry and maxillofacial surgery: Printing techniques, materials, and applications. Acta Biomater. 2020; 122:26-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.12.044. View

15.

Hatz C, Msallem B, Aghlmandi S, Brantner P, Thieringer F . Can an entry-level 3D printer create high-quality anatomical models? Accuracy assessment of mandibular models printed by a desktop 3D printer and a professional device. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 49(1):143-148. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2019.03.962. View

16.

Msallem B, Sharma N, Cao S, Halbeisen F, Zeilhofer H, Thieringer F . Evaluation of the Dimensional Accuracy of 3D-Printed Anatomical Mandibular Models Using FFF, SLA, SLS, MJ, and BJ Printing Technology. J Clin Med. 2020; 9(3). PMC: 7141211. DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030817. View

17.

Ostas D, Almasan O, Ilesan R, Andrei V, Thieringer F, Hedesiu M . Point-of-Care Virtual Surgical Planning and 3D Printing in Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery: A Narrative Review. J Clin Med. 2022; 11(22). PMC: 9692897. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11226625. View

18.

Coakley M, Hurt D . 3D Printing in the Laboratory: Maximize Time and Funds with Customized and Open-Source Labware. J Lab Autom. 2016; 21(4):489-95. PMC: 5380887. DOI: 10.1177/2211068216649578. View

19.

Pillai S, Upadhyay A, Khayambashi P, Farooq I, Sabri H, Tarar M . Dental 3D-Printing: Transferring Art from the Laboratories to the Clinics. Polymers (Basel). 2021; 13(1). PMC: 7795531. DOI: 10.3390/polym13010157. View

20.

Shujaat S, Shaheen E, Novillo F, Politis C, Jacobs R . Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography-derived casts: A comparative study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 125(1):95-102. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.021. View