4.5 Article

3D printed bio-models for medical applications

期刊

RAPID PROTOTYPING JOURNAL
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 227-235

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/RPJ-08-2015-0102

关键词

Rapid prototyping; 3D printing; Additive manufacturing; Bio-model; Data acquisition; Data conversion

资金

  1. NHG ARG grant [14009]
  2. NTU start-up grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The design process of a bio-model involves multiple factors including data acquisition technique, material requirement, resolution of the printing technique, cost-effectiveness of the printing process and end-use requirements. This paper aims to compare and highlight the effects of these design factors on the printing outcome of bio-models. Design/methodology/approach - Different data sources including engineering drawing, computed tomography (CT), and optical coherence tomography (OCT) were converted to a printable data format. Three different bio-models, namely, an ophthalmic model, a retina model and a distal tibia model, were printed using two different techniques, namely, PolyJet and fused deposition modelling. The process flow and 3D printed models were analysed. Findings - The data acquisition and 3D printing process affect the overall printing resolution. The design process flows using different data sources were established and the bio-models were printed successfully. Research limitations/implications - Data acquisition techniques contained inherent noise data and resulted in inaccuracies during data conversion. Originality/value - This work showed that the data acquisition and conversion technique had a significant effect on the quality of the bio-model blueprint and subsequently the printing outcome. In addition, important design factors of bio-models were highlighted such as material requirement and the cost-effectiveness of the printing technique. This paper provides a systematic discussion for future development of an engineering design process in three-dimensional (3D) printed bio-models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据