• Ferraris, Eleonora
• Shujaat, Sohaib
• Wang, Xiaotong
• Shaheen, Eman
• Jacobs, Reinhilde

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a novel innovation in the field of craniomaxillofacial surgery, however, a lack of evidence exists related to the comparison of the trueness of skull models fabricated using different technology-based printers belonging to different cost segments. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>A study was performed to investigate the trueness of cone-beam computed tomography-derived skull models fabricated using different technology based on low-, medium-, and high-cost 3D printers. Following the segmentation of a patient’s skull, the model was printed by: (i) a low-cost fused filament fabrication printer; (ii) a medium-cost stereolithography printer; and (iii) a high-cost material jetting printer. The fabricated models were later scanned by industrial computed tomography and superimposed onto the original reference virtual model by applying surface-based registration. A part comparison color-coded analysis was conducted for assessing the difference between the reference and scanned models. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni correction was applied for statistical analysis.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>The model printed with the low-cost fused filament fabrication printer showed the highest mean absolute error (<jats:inline-formula><jats:alternatives><jats:tex-math>1.33 0.24 {mm}</jats:tex-math><mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1.33</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.24</mml:mn><mml:mtext>mm</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></jats:alternatives></jats:inline-formula>), whereas both medium-cost stereolithography-based and the high-cost material jetting models had an overall similar dimensional error of <jats:inline-formula><jats:alternatives><jats:tex-math>0.07 0.03 {mm}</jats:tex-math><mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>0.07</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.03</mml:mn><mml:mtext>mm</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></jats:alternatives></jats:inline-formula> and <jats:inline-formula><jats:alternatives><jats:tex-math>0.07 0.01 {mm}</jats:tex-math><mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>0.07</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.01</mml:mn><mml:mtext>mm</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></jats:alternatives></jats:inline-formula>, respectively. Overall, the models printed with medium- and high-cost printers showed a significantly (<jats:inline-formula><jats:alternatives><jats:tex-math>p&lt;0.01</jats:tex-math><mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></jats:alternatives></jats:inline-formula>) lower error compared to the low-cost printer.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Both stereolithography and material jetting based printers, belonging to the medium- and high-cost market segment, were able to replicate the skeletal anatomy with optimal trueness, which might be suitable for patient-specific treatment planning tasks in craniomaxillofacial surgery. In contrast, the low-cost fused filament fabrication printer could serve as a cost-effective alternative for anatomical education, and/or patient communication.</jats:p></jats:sec>

Topics

• impedance spectroscopy
• surface
• tomography
• size-exclusion chromatography
• material jetting