快速成型骨模型的尺寸精度和准确度以及外科医生的感知:制造技术和部件方向的影响。

IF 3.2 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Emir Benca, Barbara Eckhart, Alexander Stoegner, Ewald Unger, Martin Bittner-Frank, Andreas Strassl, Claudia Gahleitner, Lena Hirtler, Reinhard Windhager, Gerhard M Hobusch, Francesco Moscato
{"title":"快速成型骨模型的尺寸精度和准确度以及外科医生的感知:制造技术和部件方向的影响。","authors":"Emir Benca, Barbara Eckhart, Alexander Stoegner, Ewald Unger, Martin Bittner-Frank, Andreas Strassl, Claudia Gahleitner, Lena Hirtler, Reinhard Windhager, Gerhard M Hobusch, Francesco Moscato","doi":"10.1186/s41205-024-00203-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Additively manufactured (AM) anatomical bone models are primarily utilized for training and preoperative planning purposes. As such, they must meet stringent requirements, with dimensional accuracy being of utmost importance. This study aimed to evaluate the precision and accuracy of anatomical bone models manufactured using three different AM technologies: digital light processing (DLP), fused deposition modeling (FDM), and PolyJetting (PJ), built in three different part orientations. Additionally, the study sought to assess surgeons' perceptions of how well these models mimic real bones in simulated osteosynthesis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Computer-aided design (CAD) models of six human radii were generated from computed tomography (CT) imaging data. Anatomical models were then manufactured using the three aforementioned technologies and in three different part orientations. The surfaces of all models were 3D-scanned and compared with the original CAD models. Furthermore, an anatomical model of a proximal femur including a metastatic lesion was manufactured using the three technologies, followed by (mock) osteosynthesis performed by six surgeons on each type of model. The surgeons' perceptions of the quality and haptic properties of each model were assessed using a questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean dimensional deviations from the original CAD model ranged between 0.00 and 0.13 mm with maximal inaccuracies < 1 mm for all models. In surgical simulation, PJ models achieved the highest total score on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (with 1 and 5 representing the lowest and highest level of agreement, respectively), (3.74 ± 0.99) in the surgeons' perception assessment, followed by DLP (3.41 ± 0.99) and FDM (2.43 ± 1.02). Notably, FDM was perceived as unsuitable for surgical simulation, as the material melted during drilling and sawing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In conclusion, the choice of technology and part orientation significantly influenced the accuracy and precision of additively manufactured bone models. However, all anatomical models showed satisfying accuracies and precisions, independent of the AM technology or part orientation. The anatomical and functional performance of FDM models was rated by surgeons as poor.</p>","PeriodicalId":72036,"journal":{"name":"3D printing in medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10877873/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dimensional accuracy and precision and surgeon perception of additively manufactured bone models: effect of manufacturing technology and part orientation.\",\"authors\":\"Emir Benca, Barbara Eckhart, Alexander Stoegner, Ewald Unger, Martin Bittner-Frank, Andreas Strassl, Claudia Gahleitner, Lena Hirtler, Reinhard Windhager, Gerhard M Hobusch, Francesco Moscato\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41205-024-00203-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Additively manufactured (AM) anatomical bone models are primarily utilized for training and preoperative planning purposes. As such, they must meet stringent requirements, with dimensional accuracy being of utmost importance. This study aimed to evaluate the precision and accuracy of anatomical bone models manufactured using three different AM technologies: digital light processing (DLP), fused deposition modeling (FDM), and PolyJetting (PJ), built in three different part orientations. Additionally, the study sought to assess surgeons' perceptions of how well these models mimic real bones in simulated osteosynthesis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Computer-aided design (CAD) models of six human radii were generated from computed tomography (CT) imaging data. Anatomical models were then manufactured using the three aforementioned technologies and in three different part orientations. The surfaces of all models were 3D-scanned and compared with the original CAD models. Furthermore, an anatomical model of a proximal femur including a metastatic lesion was manufactured using the three technologies, followed by (mock) osteosynthesis performed by six surgeons on each type of model. The surgeons' perceptions of the quality and haptic properties of each model were assessed using a questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean dimensional deviations from the original CAD model ranged between 0.00 and 0.13 mm with maximal inaccuracies < 1 mm for all models. In surgical simulation, PJ models achieved the highest total score on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (with 1 and 5 representing the lowest and highest level of agreement, respectively), (3.74 ± 0.99) in the surgeons' perception assessment, followed by DLP (3.41 ± 0.99) and FDM (2.43 ± 1.02). Notably, FDM was perceived as unsuitable for surgical simulation, as the material melted during drilling and sawing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In conclusion, the choice of technology and part orientation significantly influenced the accuracy and precision of additively manufactured bone models. However, all anatomical models showed satisfying accuracies and precisions, independent of the AM technology or part orientation. The anatomical and functional performance of FDM models was rated by surgeons as poor.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72036,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"3D printing in medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10877873/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"3D printing in medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-024-00203-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"3D printing in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-024-00203-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:快速成型(AM)解剖骨模型主要用于培训和术前规划。因此,它们必须满足严格的要求,其中尺寸精度至关重要。本研究旨在评估使用三种不同 AM 技术制造的解剖骨模型的精确度和准确性:数字光处理 (DLP)、熔融沉积建模 (FDM) 和聚能喷射 (PJ),以三种不同的部件方向制造。此外,该研究还试图评估外科医生对这些模型在模拟骨合成中模仿真实骨骼程度的看法:方法:根据计算机断层扫描(CT)成像数据生成六个人体桡骨的计算机辅助设计(CAD)模型。然后使用上述三种技术,按照三种不同的部位方向制造解剖模型。对所有模型的表面进行 3D 扫描,并与原始 CAD 模型进行比较。此外,还使用这三种技术制作了包括转移性病灶在内的股骨近端解剖模型,然后由六名外科医生在每种模型上进行(模拟)骨合成。通过问卷调查评估了外科医生对每种模型的质量和触觉特性的看法:结果:与原始 CAD 模型的平均尺寸偏差在 0.00 至 0.13 毫米之间,误差最大:总之,技术和零件方向的选择对快速成型骨模型的准确性和精确度有很大影响。然而,所有解剖模型都显示出令人满意的精确度和精密度,与快速成型技术或零件方向无关。外科医生对 FDM 模型的解剖和功能性能评价较差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dimensional accuracy and precision and surgeon perception of additively manufactured bone models: effect of manufacturing technology and part orientation.

Background: Additively manufactured (AM) anatomical bone models are primarily utilized for training and preoperative planning purposes. As such, they must meet stringent requirements, with dimensional accuracy being of utmost importance. This study aimed to evaluate the precision and accuracy of anatomical bone models manufactured using three different AM technologies: digital light processing (DLP), fused deposition modeling (FDM), and PolyJetting (PJ), built in three different part orientations. Additionally, the study sought to assess surgeons' perceptions of how well these models mimic real bones in simulated osteosynthesis.

Methods: Computer-aided design (CAD) models of six human radii were generated from computed tomography (CT) imaging data. Anatomical models were then manufactured using the three aforementioned technologies and in three different part orientations. The surfaces of all models were 3D-scanned and compared with the original CAD models. Furthermore, an anatomical model of a proximal femur including a metastatic lesion was manufactured using the three technologies, followed by (mock) osteosynthesis performed by six surgeons on each type of model. The surgeons' perceptions of the quality and haptic properties of each model were assessed using a questionnaire.

Results: The mean dimensional deviations from the original CAD model ranged between 0.00 and 0.13 mm with maximal inaccuracies < 1 mm for all models. In surgical simulation, PJ models achieved the highest total score on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (with 1 and 5 representing the lowest and highest level of agreement, respectively), (3.74 ± 0.99) in the surgeons' perception assessment, followed by DLP (3.41 ± 0.99) and FDM (2.43 ± 1.02). Notably, FDM was perceived as unsuitable for surgical simulation, as the material melted during drilling and sawing.

Conclusions: In conclusion, the choice of technology and part orientation significantly influenced the accuracy and precision of additively manufactured bone models. However, all anatomical models showed satisfying accuracies and precisions, independent of the AM technology or part orientation. The anatomical and functional performance of FDM models was rated by surgeons as poor.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信