2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2015.04.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accuracy assessment of 3D bone reconstructions using CT: an intro comparison

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
20
0
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
(26 reference statements)
1
20
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The 3D-printed PCL scaffold blocks were larger than the actual defect size and required some trimming before transplantation into the defect site. These results may be attributed to an error caused by distortions between the CT images and the actual structure that developed in the process of creating a 3D image based on the obtained data [ 31 , 32 ]. Further research will be needed to compensate for the size differences resulting from the common output errors and the differences between the CAD/CAM design and the final image utilized in the actual output for 3D bio-printing.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The 3D-printed PCL scaffold blocks were larger than the actual defect size and required some trimming before transplantation into the defect site. These results may be attributed to an error caused by distortions between the CT images and the actual structure that developed in the process of creating a 3D image based on the obtained data [ 31 , 32 ]. Further research will be needed to compensate for the size differences resulting from the common output errors and the differences between the CAD/CAM design and the final image utilized in the actual output for 3D bio-printing.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All models were wrapped and smoothed within the Mimics 22.0 software, saved as stereolithography (STL) files, remeshed in 3-Matic (Materialise, Belgium), and converted to a different file format for ease of use in subsequent Python programs (visualization toolkit (VTK) files in Paraview (Kitware, Inc., New York 3 )). This method of reconstruction was validated previously where 3D reconstructions were created and compared to a ground truth bone digitization (average error <0.3 mm) [17]. Once models were complete, the lunate was classified by two types: type 1 lunates do not articulate with the hamate (n ¼ 2 in the young cohort; n ¼ 3 in the old cohort), while type 2 lunates do articulate with the hamate [18].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To obtain baseline data for measurements of cartilage, the cartilage dissolution technique was used to create bone models without cartilage 25-32 . The joint surfaces of the specimens were soaked in 6.0% sodium hypochlorite for 12 to 24 hours to dissolve the articular cartilage 29 . We visually inspected and checked the cartilage by touching the surface with a surgical probe to ensure that the cartilage was completely dissolved 31 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%