4.5 Article

Dimensional error of selective laser sintering, three-dimensional printing and PolyJet™ models in the reproduction of mandibular anatomy

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRANIO-MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages 167-173

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2008.10.008

Keywords

mandible; oral surgery; maxillofacial surgery; craniofacial abnormalities; skeleton; Helical Computed Tomography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Selective laser sintering (SLS), three-dimensional printing (3DP (TM)) and PolyJet (TM) are rapid prototyping (RP) techniques to fabricate prototypes from virtual biomedical images. To be used in maxillofacial surgery, these models must accurately reproduce the craniofacial skeleton. Purpose: To analyze the capacity of SLS, 3DP (TM) and PolyJet (TM) models to reproduce mandibular anatomy and their dimensional error. Material: Dry mandible, helical CT images, SLS, 3DP (TM) and PolyJet (TM) prototypes, and digital electronic caliper. Methods: Helical CT images were acquired from a dry mandible (criterion standard) and manipulated with the InVesalius software. Prototypes were produced using SLS, 3DP (TM) and PolyJet (TM) techniques. Thirteen linear measurements of each prototype were made and compared with the dry mandible measurements. Results: The results showed a dimensional error of 1.79%, 3.14% and 2.14% for SLS, 3DP (TM) and PolyJet (TM) models, respectively. The models satisfactorily reproduced anatomic details and the SLS and PolyJet (TM) prototypes showed greater dimensional precision and reproduced mandibular anatomy more accurately than the 3DP (TM) model. Conclusions: The SLS prototype had a greater dimensional accuracy than the PolyJet (TM) and 3DP (TM) models. The PolyJet (TM) technique reproduced anatomic details of the mandible more accurately. (C) 2008 European Association for Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available