Evaluation of Fused Deposition Modeling Materials for 3D-Printed Container of Dosimetric Polymer Gel

Overview

Journal Gels

Date 2024 Feb 23

PMID 38391476

Authors

Minsik Lee

Seonyeong Noh

Jun-Bong Shin

JungWon Kwak

Chiyoung Jeong

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Accurate dosimetric verification is becoming increasingly important in radiotherapy. Although polymer gel dosimetry may be useful for verifying complex 3D dose distributions, it has limitations for clinical application due to its strong reactivity with oxygen and other contaminants. Therefore, it is important that the material of the gel storage container blocks reaction with external contaminants. In this study, we tested the effect of air and the chemical permeability of various polymer-based 3D printing materials that can be used as gel containers. A methacrylic acid, gelatin, and tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium chloride gel was used. Five types of printing materials that can be applied to the fused deposition modeling (FDM)-type 3D printer were compared: acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), co-polyester (CPE), polycarbonate (PC), polylactic acid (PLA), and polypropylene (PP) (reference: glass vial). The map of R2 (1/T2) relaxation rates for each material, obtained from magnetic resonance imaging scans, was analyzed. Additionally, response histograms and dose calibration curves from the R2 map were evaluated. The R2 distribution showed that CPE had sharper boundaries than the other materials, and the profile gradient of CPE was also closest to the reference vial. Histograms and dose calibration showed that CPE provided the most homogeneous and the highest relative response of 83.5%, with 8.6% root mean square error, compared with the reference vial. These results indicate that CPE is a reasonable material for the FDM-type 3D printing gel container.

References

Baldock C, De Deene Y, Doran S, Ibbott G, Jirasek A, Lepage M . Polymer gel dosimetry. Phys Med Biol. 2010; 55(5):R1-63. PMC: 3031873. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/55/5/R01. View

Shim J, Kim J, Jeong S, Choi Y, Ryu J . Printing accuracy, mechanical properties, surface characteristics, and microbial adhesion of 3D-printed resins with various printing orientations. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 124(4):468-475. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.034. View

Macchione M, Lechon Paez S, Strumia M, Valente M, Mattea F . Chemical Overview of Gel Dosimetry Systems: A Comprehensive Review. Gels. 2022; 8(10). PMC: 9601373. DOI: 10.3390/gels8100663. View

Farhood B, Geraily G, Abtahi S . A systematic review of clinical applications of polymer gel dosimeters in radiotherapy. Appl Radiat Isot. 2018; 143:47-59. DOI: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2018.08.018. View

De Deene Y, De Wagter C . Artefacts in multi-echo T2 imaging for high-precision gel dosimetry: III. Effects of temperature drift during scanning. Phys Med Biol. 2001; 46(10):2697-711. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/46/10/312. View

Di Piazza E, Pandolfi E, Cacciotti I, Del Fattore A, Tozzi A, Secinaro A . Bioprinting Technology in Skin, Heart, Pancreas and Cartilage Tissues: Progress and Challenges in Clinical Practice. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(20). PMC: 8535210. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182010806. View

Lindsay C, Kumlin J, Jirasek A, Lee R, Martinez D, Schaffer P . 3D printed plastics for beam modulation in proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2015; 60(11):N231-40. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/11/N231. View

Malatesta T, Scaggion A, Romana Giglioli F, Belmonte G, Casale M, Colleoni P . Patient specific quality assurance in SBRT: a systematic review of measurement-based methods. Phys Med Biol. 2023; 68(21). DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/acf43a. View

Elter A, Dorsch S, Mann P, Runz A, Johnen W, Karger C . Compatibility of 3D printing materials and printing techniques with PAGAT gel dosimetry. Phys Med Biol. 2019; 64(4):04NT02. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aafef0. View

10.

Kong Y, Yan T, Sun Y, Qian J, Zhou G, Cai S . A dosimetric study on the use of 3D-printed customized boluses in photon therapy: A hydrogel and silica gel study. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018; 20(1):348-355. PMC: 6333182. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12489. View

11.

Lukowiak M, Jezierska K, Boehlke M, Wiecko M, Lukowiak A, Podraza W . Utilization of a 3D printer to fabricate boluses used for electron therapy of skin lesions of the eye canthi. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017; 18(1):76-81. PMC: 5689892. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12013. View

12.

Doran S . The history and principles of chemical dosimetry for 3-D radiation fields: gels, polymers and plastics. Appl Radiat Isot. 2008; 67(3):393-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2008.06.026. View

13.

Vergote K, De Deene Y, Duthoy W, De Gersem W, De Neve W, Achten E . Validation and application of polymer gel dosimetry for the dose verification of an intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) treatment. Phys Med Biol. 2004; 49(2):287-305. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/49/2/008. View

14.

Tack P, Victor J, Gemmel P, Annemans L . 3D-printing techniques in a medical setting: a systematic literature review. Biomed Eng Online. 2016; 15(1):115. PMC: 5073919. DOI: 10.1186/s12938-016-0236-4. View

15.

Venning A, Nitschke K, Keall P, Baldock C . Radiological properties of normoxic polymer gel dosimeters. Med Phys. 2005; 32(4):1047-53. DOI: 10.1118/1.1881812. View

16.

Haefner M, Giesel F, Mattke M, Rath D, Wade M, Kuypers J . 3D-Printed masks as a new approach for immobilization in radiotherapy - a study of positioning accuracy. Oncotarget. 2018; 9(5):6490-6498. PMC: 5814227. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.24032. View

17.

ODaniel J, Giles W, Cui Y, Adamson J . A structured FMEA approach to optimizing combinations of plan-specific quality assurance techniques for IMRT and VMAT QA. Med Phys. 2023; 50(9):5387-5397. DOI: 10.1002/mp.16630. View

18.

De Deene Y, Vergote K, Claeys C, De Wagter C . The fundamental radiation properties of normoxic polymer gel dosimeters: a comparison between a methacrylic acid based gel and acrylamide based gels. Phys Med Biol. 2006; 51(3):653-73. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/3/012. View

19.

Perez M, Medina-Sanchez G, Garcia-Collado A, Gupta M, Carou D . Surface Quality Enhancement of Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) Printed Samples Based on the Selection of Critical Printing Parameters. Materials (Basel). 2018; 11(8). PMC: 6120050. DOI: 10.3390/ma11081382. View