4.5 Article

Inaccuracies in additive manufactured medical skull models caused by the DICOM to STL conversion process

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRANIO-MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 42, Issue 5, Pages E259-E265

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2013.10.001

Keywords

Additive-manufacturing; Bio-modelling; CBCT; DICOM; STL

Funding

  1. Tekes - the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation
  2. Finnish Doctoral Program in Oral Sciences (FINDOS)
  3. Brno University of Technology [FSI-S-11-12]
  4. Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The process of fabricating physical medical skull models requires many steps, each of which is a potential source of geometric error. The aim of this study was to demonstrate inaccuracies and differences caused by DICOM to STL conversion in additively manufactured medical skull models. Material and methods: Three different institutes were requested to perform an automatic reconstruction from an identical DICOM data set of a patients undergoing tumour surgery into an STL file format using their software of preference. The acquired digitized STL data sets were assessed and compared and subsequently used to fabricate physical medical skull models. The three fabricated skull models were then scanned, and differences in the model geometries were assessed using established CAD inspection software methods. Results: A large variation was noted in size and anatomical geometries of the three physical skull models fabricated from an identical (or a single) DICOM data set. Conclusions: A medical skull model of the same individual can vary markedly depending on the DICOM to STL conversion software and the technical parameters used. Clinicians should be aware of this inaccuracy in certain applications. (C) 2013 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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