4.6 Article

Cumulative Inaccuracies in Implementation of Additive Manufacturing Through Medical Imaging, 3D Thresholding, and 3D Modeling: A Case Study for an End-Use Implant

Journal

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
Volume 10, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app10082968

Keywords

3D printing; craniomaxillofacial surgery; medical imaging; computed tomography (CT); segmentation; digital design; CAD; implants; cumulative error; error propagation; standard uncertainty; spatial accuracy; quality control; quality assurance

Funding

  1. Metrology for Additively Manufactured Medical Implants (MetAMMI) project from the EMPIR program
  2. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Featured Application Accuracy of additively manufactured implants for clinical surgery. Abstract In craniomaxillofacial surgical procedures, an emerging practice adopts the preoperative virtual planning that uses medical imaging (computed tomography), 3D thresholding (segmentation), 3D modeling (digital design), and additive manufacturing (3D printing) for the procurement of an end-use implant. The objective of this case study was to evaluate the cumulative spatial inaccuracies arising from each step of the process chain when various computed tomography protocols and thresholding values were independently changed. A custom-made quality assurance instrument (Phantom) was used to evaluate the medical imaging error. A sus domesticus (domestic pig) head was analyzed to determine the 3D thresholding error. The 3D modeling error was estimated from the computer-aided design software. Finally, the end-use implant was used to evaluate the additive manufacturing error. The results were verified using accurate measurement instruments and techniques. A worst-case cumulative error of 1.7 mm (3.0%) was estimated for one boundary condition and 2.3 mm (4.1%) for two boundary conditions considering the maximum length (56.9 mm) of the end-use implant. Uncertainty from the clinical imaging to the end-use implant was 0.8 mm (1.4%). This study helps practitioners establish and corroborate surgical practices that are within the bounds of an appropriate accuracy for clinical treatment and restoration.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available