Measuring and Establishing the Accuracy and Reproducibility of 3D Printed Medical Models

References

• 1. Mitsouras D, Liacouras P, Imanzadeh A, et al. Medical 3D printing for the radiologist. RadioGraphics 2015;35(7):1965–1988.
  Google Scholar
• 2. Giannopoulos AA, Steigner ML, George E, et al. Cardiothoracic applications of 3-dimensional printing. J Thorac Imaging 2016;31(5):253–272.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 3. Matsumoto JS, Morris JM, Foley TA, et al. Three-dimensional physical modeling: applications and experience at Mayo Clinic. RadioGraphics 2015;35(7):1989–2006.
  Google Scholar
• 4. Namba K, Higaki A, Kaneko N, Mashiko T, Nemoto S, Watanabe E. Microcatheter shaping for intracranial aneurysm coiling using the 3-dimensional printing rapid prototyping technology: preliminary result in the first 10 consecutive cases. World Neurosurg 2015;84(1):178–186.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 5. The world’s first 3D printed total jaw reconstruction. Xilloc website. http://www.xilloc.com/patients/stories/total-mandibular-implant/. Accessed September 20, 2016.
  Google Scholar
• 6. Wong KC, Kumta SM, Geel NV, Demol J. One-step reconstruction with a 3D-printed, biomechanically evaluated custom implant after complex pelvic tumor resection. Comput Aided Surg 2015;20(1):14–23.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 7. Aranda JL, Jiménez MF, Rodríguez M, Varela G. Tridimensional titanium-printed custom-made prosthesis for sternocostal reconstruction. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015;48(4):e92–e94.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 8. Morrison RJ, Hollister SJ, Niedner MF, et al. Mitigation of tracheobronchomalacia with 3D-printed personalized medical devices in pediatric patients. Sci Transl Med 2015;7(285):285ra64.
  Google Scholar
• 9. Parthasarathy J. 3D modeling, custom implants and its future perspectives in craniofacial surgery. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2014;4(1):9–18.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 10. Young BW. Major first!: FDA grants first 3D printed implant clearance. OPM in the News website. http://www.oxfordpm.com/major-first-fda-grants-first-3d-printed-implant-clearance. Accessed September 20, 2016.
  Google Scholar
• 11. Erickson DM, Chance D, Schmitt S, Mathis J. An opinion survey of reported benefits from the use of stereolithographic models. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57(9):1040–1043.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 12. Martelli N, Serrano C, van den Brink H, et al. Advantages and disadvantages of 3-dimensional printing in surgery: a systematic review. Surgery 2016;159(6):1485–1500.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 13. Liu YF, Xu LW, Zhu HY, Liu SS. Technical procedures for template-guided surgery for mandibular reconstruction based on digital design and manufacturing. Biomed Eng Online 2014;13:63.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 14. Weinstock P, Prabhu SP, Flynn K, Orbach DB, Smith E. Optimizing cerebrovascular surgical and endovascular procedures in children via personalized 3D printing. J Neurosurg Pediatr doi: 10.3171/2015.3.PEDS14677. Published online July 31, 2015.
  Google Scholar
• 15. Yang M, Li C, Li Y, et al. Application of 3D rapid prototyping technology in posterior corrective surgery for Lenke 1 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94(8):e582.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 16. Fasel JH, Beinemann J, Schaller K, Gailloud P. A critical inventory of preoperative skull replicas. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2013;95(6):401–404.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 17. Chang PS, Parker TH, Patrick CW Jr, Miller MJ. The accuracy of stereolithography in planning craniofacial bone replacement. J Craniofac Surg 2003;14(2):164–170.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 18. Kondo K, Nemoto M, Masuda H, et al. Anatomical reproducibility of a head model molded by a three-dimensional printer. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2015;55(7):592–598.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 19. Frölich AM, Spallek J, Brehmer L, et al. 3D printing of intracranial aneurysms using fused deposition modeling offers highly accurate replications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37(1):120–124.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 20. Mathur M, Patil P, Bove A. The role of 3D printing in structural heart disease: all that glitters is not gold. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;8(8):987–988.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 21. Stumpel LJ. Deformation of stereolithographically produced surgical guides: an observational case series report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14(3):442–453.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 22. Russon M. 12 NHS hospitals using 3D-printed models to test implants before surgery. International Business Times website. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/12-nhs-hospitals-using-3d-printed-models-test-implants-before-surgery-1462862. Published August 27, 2014. Accessed September 20, 2016.
  Google Scholar
• 23. Schweizer A, Mauler F, Vlachopoulos L, Nagy L, Fürnstahl P. Computer-assisted 3-dimensional reconstructions of scaphoid fractures and nonunions with and without the use of patient-specific guides: early clinical outcomes and postoperative assessments of reconstruction accuracy. J Hand Surg Am 2016;41(1):59–69.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 24. Gan Y, Ding J, Xu Y, Hou C. Accuracy and efficacy of osteotomy in total knee arthroplasty with patient-specific navigational template. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;8(8): 12192–12201.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 25. Hu Y, Yuan ZS, Spiker WR, et al. A comparative study on the accuracy of pedicle screw placement assisted by personalized rapid prototyping template between pre- and post-operation in patients with relatively normal mid-upper thoracic spine. Eur Spine J 2016;25(6):1706–1715.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 26. Teeter MG, Kopacz AJ, Nikolov HN, Holdsworth DW. Metrology test object for dimensional verification in additive manufacturing of metals for biomedical applications. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2015;229(1):20–27.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 27. 3D Stereolithography Printers Tech Specs. 3D Systems website. https://www.3dsystems.com/sites/default/files/2017-05/3D-Systems_SLA_TECH_SPECS_USEN_2017.05.01_WEB.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2017.
  Google Scholar
• 28. O’Hara RP, Chand A, Vidilaya S, et al. Advanced 3D mesh manipulation in stereolithographic files and post-print processing for the manufacturing of patient-specific vascular flow phantoms. In: Zhang J, Cook TS, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2016—PACS and imaging informatics: next generation and innovations. Vol 9789. Bellingham, Wash: International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2016; 978909.
  Google Scholar
• 29. El-Katatny I, Masood SH, Morsi YS. Error analysis of FDM fabricated medical replicas. Rapid Prototyp J 2010;16(1):36–43.
  Google Scholar
• 30. Harris BD, Nilsson S, Poole CM. A feasibility study for using ABS plastic and a low-cost 3D printer for patient-specific brachytherapy mould design. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2015;38(3):399–412.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 31. Ishida Y, Miyasaka T. Dimensional accuracy of dental casting patterns created by 3D printers. Dent Mater J 2016;35(2):250–256.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 32. Salmi M, Paloheimo KS, Tuomi J, Wolff J, Mäkitie A. Accuracy of medical models made by additive manufacturing (rapid manufacturing). J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013;41(7):603–609.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 33. Braian M, Jimbo R, Wennerberg A. Production tolerance of additive manufactured polymeric objects for clinical applications. Dent Mater 2016;32(7):853–861.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 34. Taft RM, Kondor S, Grant GT. Accuracy of rapid prototype models for head and neck reconstruction. J Prosthet Dent 2011;106(6):399–408.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 35. Petropolis C, Kozan D, Sigurdson L. Accuracy of medical models made by consumer-grade fused deposition modelling printers. Plast Surg (Oakv) 2015;23(2):91–94.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 36. Pang TH, Guertin MD, Nguyen HD. Accuracy of stereolithography parts: mechanism and modes of distortion for a “letter-H” diagnostic part. In: Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, Texas, August 7–9, 1995; 170–180.
  Google Scholar
• 37. Doran SJ, Charles-Edwards L, Reinsberg SA, Leach MO. A complete distortion correction for MR images. I. Gradient warp correction. Phys Med Biol 2005;50(7):1343–1361.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 38. Martorelli M, Gerbino S, Giudice M, Ausiello P. A comparison between customized clear and removable orthodontic appliances manufactured using RP and CNC techniques. Dent Mater 2013;29(2):e1–e10.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 39. Mitsouras D, Lee TC, Liacouras P, et al. Three-dimensional printing of MRI-visible phantoms and MR image-guided therapy simulation. Magn Reson Med 2017;77(2):613–622. doi: 10.1002/mrm.26136. Published online February 11, 2016.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 40. Engelke K, Libanati C, Liu Y, et al. Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) of the forearm using general purpose spiral whole-body CT scanners: accuracy, precision and comparison with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Bone 2009;45(1):110–118.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 41. Whyms BJ, Vorperian HK, Gentry LR, Schimek EM, Bersu ET, Chung MK. The effect of computed tomographic scanner parameters and 3-dimensional volume rendering techniques on the accuracy of linear, angular, and volumetric measurements of the mandible. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013;115(5):682–691.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 42. 3D point cloud and mesh processing software open source project. CloudCompare website. http://www.danielgm.net/cc/. Accessed June 11, 2016.
  Google Scholar
• 43. Di Prima M, Coburn J, Hwang D, Kelly J, Khairuzzaman A, Ricles L. Additively manufactured medical products: the FDA perspective. 3D Print Med 2016;2(1).
  Medline Google Scholar
• 44. Barker TM, Earwaker WJ, Lisle DA. Accuracy of stereolithographic models of human anatomy. Australas Radiol 1994;38(2):106–111.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 45. Ibrahim D, Broilo TL, Heitz C, et al. Dimensional error of selective laser sintering, three-dimensional printing and PolyJet models in the reproduction of mandibular anatomy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2009;37(3):167–173.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 46. Choi JY, Choi JH, Kim NK, et al. Analysis of errors in medical rapid prototyping models. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;31(1):23–32.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 47. Silva DN, Gerhardt de Oliveira M, Meurer E, Meurer MI, Lopes da Silva JV, Santa-Bárbara A. Dimensional error in selective laser sintering and 3D-printing of models for craniomaxillary anatomy reconstruction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2008;36(8):443–449.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 48. van Eijnatten M, Rijkhorst EJ, Hofman M, Forouzanfar T, Wolff J. The accuracy of ultrashort echo time MRI sequences for medical additive manufacturing. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016;45(5):20150424.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 49. Ogden KM, Aslan C, Ordway N, Diallo D, Tillapaugh-Fay G, Soman P. Factors affecting dimensional accuracy of 3-D printed anatomical structures derived from CT data. J Digit Imaging 2015;28(6):654–663.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 50. Wu XB, Wang JQ, Zhao CP, et al. Printed three-dimensional anatomic templates for virtual preoperative planning before reconstruction of old pelvic injuries: initial results. Chin Med J (Engl) 2015;128(4):477–482.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 51. Pinto JM, Arrieta C, Andia ME, et al. Sensitivity analysis of geometric errors in additive manufacturing medical models. Med Eng Phys 2015;37(3):328–334.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 52. Fourie Z, Damstra J, Schepers RH, Gerrits PO, Ren Y. Segmentation process significantly influences the accuracy of 3D surface models derived from cone beam computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 2012;81(4):e524–e530.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 53. Santana RR, Lozada J, Kleinman A, Al-Ardah A, Herford A, Chen JW. Accuracy of cone beam computerized tomography and a three-dimensional stereolithographic model in identifying the anterior loop of the mental nerve: a study on cadavers. J Oral Implantol 2012;38(6):668–676.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 54. Bowers ME, Trinh N, Tung GA, Crisco JJ, Kimia BB, Fleming BC. Quantitative MR imaging using “LiveWire” to measure tibiofemoral articular cartilage thickness. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008;16(10):1167–1173.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 55. Gelaude F, Vander Sloten J, Lauwers B. Accuracy assessment of CT-based outer surface femur meshes. Comput Aided Surg 2008;13(4):188–199.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 56. Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y, et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). II. On 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol 2010;75(2):270–274.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 57. Berry E, Brown JM, Connell M, et al. Preliminary experience with medical applications of rapid prototyping by selective laser sintering. Med Eng Phys 1997;19(1):90–96.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 58. Frühwald J, Schicho KA, Figl M, Benesch T, Watzinger F, Kainberger F. Accuracy of craniofacial measurements: computed tomography and three-dimensional computed tomography compared with stereolithographic models. J Craniofac Surg 2008;19(1):22–26.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 59. Wu AM, Shao ZX, Wang JS, et al. The accuracy of a method for printing three-dimensional spinal models. PLoS One 2015;10(4):e0124291.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 60. Waran V, Devaraj P, Hari Chandran T, et al. Three-dimensional anatomical accuracy of cranial models created by rapid prototyping techniques validated using a neuronavigation station. J Clin Neurosci 2012;19(4):574–577.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 61. Ionita CN, Mokin M, Varble N, et al. Challenges and limitations of patient-specific vascular phantom fabrication using 3D Polyjet printing. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 2014;9038:90380M.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 62. Xu WH, Liu J, Li ML, Sun ZY, Chen J, Wu JH. 3D printing of intracranial artery stenosis based on the source images of magnetic resonance angiograph. Ann Transl Med 2014;2(8):74.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 63. Biglino G, Verschueren P, Zegels R, Taylor AM, Schievano S. Rapid prototyping compliant arterial phantoms for in-vitro studies and device testing. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2013;15:2.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 64. Baeck K, Lopes P, Biglino G, Capelli C, Verschueren P. State of the art in 3D printing of compliant cardiovascular models: HeartPrint—material characterization of HeartPrint models and comparison with arterial tissue properties. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Joint Workshop on New Technologies for Computer/Robot Assisted Surgery. Verona, Italy, September 11–13, 2013.
  Google Scholar
• 65. Ripley B, Kelil T, Cheezum MK, et al. 3D printing based on cardiac CT assists anatomic visualization prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2016;10(1):28–36.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 66. Cai T, Ripley BA, Cheezum M, et al. Accuracy of 3D printed models of the aortic valve complex for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) planning: comparison to computed tomographic angiography (CTA) [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2015; 281.
  Google Scholar
• 67. Anderson JR, Thompson WL, Alkattan AK, et al. Three-dimensional printing of anatomically accurate, patient specific intracranial aneurysm models. J Neurointerv Surg 2016;8(5):517–520.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 68. Håkansson A, Rantatalo M, Hansen T, Wanhainen A. Patient specific biomodel of the whole aorta: the importance of calcified plaque removal. Vasa 2011;40(6):453–459.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 69. Koleilat I, Jaeggli M, Ewing JA, Androes M, Simionescu DT, Eidt J. Interobserver variability in physician-modified endograft planning by comparison with a three-dimensional printed aortic model. J Vasc Surg 2016;64(6):1789–1796.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 70. Maragiannis D, Jackson MS, Igo SR, et al. Replicating patient-specific severe aortic valve stenosis with functional 3D modeling. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;8(10):e003626.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 71. Olivieri LJ, Krieger A, Loke YH, Nath DS, Kim PC, Sable CA. Three-dimensional printing of intracardiac defects from three-dimensional echocardiographic images: feasibility and relative accuracy. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2015;28(4):392–397.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 72. Huotilainen E, Jaanimets R, Valášek J, et al. Inaccuracies in additive manufactured medical skull models caused by the DICOM to STL conversion process. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014;42(5):e259–e265.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 73. Naitoh M, Kubota Y, Katsumata A, Ohsaki C, Ariji E. Dimensional accuracy of a binder jet model produced from computerized tomography data for dental implants. J Oral Implantol 2006;32(6):273–276.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 74. Arrieta C, Uribe S, Ramos-Grez J, et al. Quantitative assessments of geometric errors for rapid prototyping in medical applications. Rapid Prototyp J 2012;18(6):431–442.
  Google Scholar
• 75. Cai T, Rybicki FJ, Giannopoulos A, et al. The residual STL volume as a metric to evaluate accuracy and reproducibility of anatomic models for 3D printing: application in the validation of 3D printable models of maxillofacial bone from reduced radiation dose CT images. 3D Print Med 2015;1(2).
  Medline Google Scholar
• 76. Dickinson KJ, Matsumoto J, Cassivi SD, et al. Individualizing management of complex esophageal pathology using three-dimensional printed models. Ann Thorac Surg 2015;100(2):692–697.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 77. Soga S, Pomahac B, Wake N, et al. CT angiography for surgical planning in face transplantation candidates. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34(10):1873–1881.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 78. OsiriX: the world famous DICOM viewer. Osirix website. http://www.osirix-viewer.com/. Accessed June 12, 2016.
  Google Scholar
• 79. Slicer 4.6 released. 3D Slicer website. https://www.slicer.org/. Accessed June 12, 2016.
  Google Scholar
• 80. Cheng GZ, San Jose Estepar R, Folch E, Onieva J, Gangadharan S, Majid A. Three-dimensional printing and 3D slicer: powerful tools in understanding and treating structural lung disease. Chest 2016;149(5):1136–1142.
  Medline Google Scholar