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

Santana, Ruben; Lozada, Jaime; Kleinman, Alejandro; Al-Ardah, Aladdin J.; Herford, Alan S.; Chen, Jung Wei

doi:10.1563/aaid-joi-d-11-00130

Cited by 28 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results obtained in the Santana et al study (53) highlight the potential pitfalls associated with the large discordance between image interpretations performed by radiologists and the image processing steps required to generate a 3D printed modelnamely, segmentation and STL postprocessing. This is perhaps the most relevant concern of radiology practice clinicians who use 3D printing.…”

Section: Accuracy Of 3d Printed Model Versus Radiologic Image Measurementioning

confidence: 83%

“…Differences range from as little as 3.5% to as much as 23.8% of the tissue dimensions, with larger discrepancies observed for smaller (a few millimeters) tissues (Appendix E1A). In one such study performed by Santana et al (53), the difference between the cadaveric measurements and those performed on the CT images was an order of magnitude smaller than the difference between the cadaveric measurements and those performed on the STL models (2.4% versus 23.8%) ( Table 3). These results emphasize the caveat that the segmentation of tissues depicted on images, which is necessary to yield the STL model for 3D printing, is a major contributor to inaccuracies that must be critically addressed in future research.…”

Section: Accuracy Of 3d Printed Model Versus Cadaveric and Surgicallymentioning

confidence: 86%

“…However, this finding cannot be generalized to most nonosseous applications that lack the benefit of the high contrast-to-noise ratio of bone at CT, which enables simple thresholdbased segmentation (1). Because there is limited opportunity to access soft tissues surgically without deforming them, there is limited literature on the accuracy of 3D printed anatomy, as compared with pathologic specimens (14,53). Differences range from as little as 3.5% to as much as 23.8% of the tissue dimensions, with larger discrepancies observed for smaller (a few millimeters) tissues (Appendix E1A).…”

Section: Accuracy Of 3d Printed Model Versus Cadaveric and Surgicallymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the rapid growth of three-dimensional (3D) printing applications in medicine, the accuracy and reproducibility of 3D printed medical models have not been thoroughly investigated. Although current technologies enable 3D models to be created with accuracy within the limits of clinical imaging spatial resolutions, this is not always achieved in practice. Inaccuracies are due to errors that occur during the imaging, segmentation, postprocessing, and 3D printing steps. Radiologists' understanding of the factors that influence 3D printed model accuracy and the metrics used to measure this accuracy is key in directing appropriate practices and establishing reference standards and validation procedures. The authors review the various factors in each step of the 3D model printing process that contribute to model inaccuracy, including the intrinsic limitations of each printing technology. In addition, common sources of model inaccuracy are illustrated. Metrics involving comparisons of model dimensions and morphology that have been developed to quantify differences between 3D models also are described and illustrated. These metrics can be used to define the accuracy of a model, as compared with the reference standard, and to measure the variability of models created by different observers or using different workflows. The accuracies reported for specific indications of 3D printing are summarized, and potential guidelines for quality assurance and workflow assessment are discussed. Online supplemental material is available for this article. RSNA, 2017.

show abstract

Section: Accuracy Of 3d Printed Model Versus Radiologic Image Measurementioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Accuracy Of 3d Printed Model Versus Cadaveric and Surgicallymentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Accuracy Of 3d Printed Model Versus Cadaveric and Surgicallymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To our knowledge, no digital panoramic radiography studies have assessed impact of image magnification on the accuracy of measurements using various imaging software programs, including DICOM viewers. Yet, DICOM and other software programs have been used to examine the accuracy of CBCT measurements [6, 8, 9, 18]. Gaia et al [9] compared linear measurements in CBCT images using Vitrea 3.8.1 (Vital Images Inc., Plymouth, MN) viewer and the same open-source DICOM viewer OsiriX 1.2 64-bit (Pixmeo, Geneva, Switzerland) as the one used in the present in vitro study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Digital Panoramic Radiograph Magnification on Vertical Measurement Accuracy

Hage

Bernard

Combescure

et al. 2015

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives. The purpose of this panoramic radiography study was to assess the impact of image magnification on the accuracy of vertical measurements in the posterior mandible. Methods. Six dental implants, inserted in the posterior segments of a resin model, were used as reference objects. Two observers performed implant length measurements using a proprietary viewer with two preset image magnifications: the low (1.9 : 1) and the medium (3.4 : 1) image magnifications. They also measured the implant lengths in two Digital Imaging Communications in Medicine viewers set at low (1.9 : 1), medium (3.4 : 1), and high (10 : 1) image magnifications. Results. The error between the measured length and the real implant length was close to zero for all three viewers and image magnifications. The percentage of measurements equal to the real implant length was the highest (83.3%) for the high image magnification and below 30% for all viewers with the low image magnification. Conclusions. The high and medium image magnifications used in this study allowed accurate vertical measurements, with all three imaging programs, in the posterior segments of a mandibular model. This study suggests that a low image magnification should not be used for vertical measurements on digital panoramic radiographs when planning an implant in the posterior mandible.

show abstract

“…Error can be introduced at any stage of 3D printing, but mainly during image acquisition and segmentation (Figure 1) (6,(10)(11)(12). Most studies have examined the accuracy of 3D printing techniques by comparing linear measurements of the original object to the final 3D-printed model (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The accuracy of clinical 3D printing in reconstructive surgery: literature review and in vivo validation study

Chae¹,

Chung²,

Smith³

et al. 2021

Gland Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing number of studies demonstrate the benefits of 3D printing in improving surgical efficiency and subsequently clinical outcomes. However, the number of studies evaluating the accuracy of 3D printing techniques remains scarce. All publications appraising the accuracy of 3D printing between 1950 and 2018 were reviewed using well-established databases, including PubMed, Medline, Web of Science and Embase. An in vivo validation study of our 3D printing technique was undertaken using unprocessed chicken radius bones (Gallus gallus domesticus). Calculating its maximum length, we compared the measurements from computed tomography (CT) scans (CT group), image segmentation (SEG group) and 3D-printed (3DP) models (3DP group). Twenty-eight comparison studies in 19 papers have been identified. Published mean error of CT-based 3D printing techniques were 0.46 mm (1.06%) in stereolithography, 1.05 mm (1.78%) in binder jet technology, 0.72 mm (0.82%) in PolyJet technique, 0.20 mm (0.95%) in fused filament fabrication (FFF) and 0.72 mm (1.25%) in selective laser sintering (SLS). In the current in vivo validation study, mean errors were 0.34 mm (0.86%) in CT group, 1.02 mm (2.51%) in SEG group and 1.16 mm (2.84%) in 3DP group. Our Peninsula 3D printing technique using a FFF 3D printer thus produced accuracy similar to the published studies (1.16 mm, 2.84%). There was a statistically significant difference (P<10 −4 ) between the CT group and the latter SEG and 3DP groups indicating that most of the error is introduced during image segmentation stage.

show abstract

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

Cited by 28 publications

References 26 publications

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

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

Impact of Digital Panoramic Radiograph Magnification on Vertical Measurement Accuracy

The accuracy of clinical 3D printing in reconstructive surgery: literature review and in vivo validation study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About