Bismuth Infusion of ABS Enables Additive Manufacturing of Complex Radiological Phantoms and Shielding Equipment

Ceh, Justin; Youd, Tom; Mastrovich, Zach; Peterson, Cody; Khan, Shahper N.; Sasser, Todd A.; Sander, Ian M.; Doney, Justin; Turner, Clark Savage; Leevy, W. Matthew

doi:10.3390/s17030459

Cited by 54 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, Ceh et al compared several anatomical features, such as the zygomatic bone, the middle turbinate bone, the upper mandible and lower maxilla, between the CT scan of a patient and the phantom measurements in terms of width. The average percentage difference of the anatomical features was 1.71%.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ceh et al compared the CT numbers of the patients and the phantom for different anatomical features. The HUs of the phantoms were approximately 2.61 #bib2.56, 2.82, 2.53, and 2.63, and the corresponding HUs of the patient were 1.04, 1.54, 1.09, 1.04, 1.75, which represented the zygomatic bone, the middle turbinate bone, the zygomatic bone (lateral), the upper mandible, and lower maxilla, respectively.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The resolution is expressed in dots per inch (dpi) or micrometers (lm) and assessed by comparing the dimensions of the produced physical phantom with the original dimensions provided to the printer. Among the papers used, 10 have assessed the resolution or accuracy of the printer by quantitative (numerical) comparison, [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] 10 by qualitative (figural) comparison, 22,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] and 14 by both quantitative and qualitative comparison. 10,21,[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] Sixteen of the research articles do not include a verification of the printers' resolutions.…”

Section: A Characterization Of 3d-printed Phantom Spatial Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, a 0.20 mm 2 area with a 0.5 mm diameter had a difference error of 664% from its true size, while a 12.57 mm 2 area with a 4 mm diameter had a difference error of 17%. 28 Furthermore, Ceh et al 29 compared several anatomical features, such as the zygomatic bone, the middle turbinate…”

Section: A1 Computed Tomographymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Recent advances on the development of phantoms using 3D printing for imaging with CT, MRI, PET, SPECT, and ultrasound

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Printing technology, capable of producing three-dimensional (3D) objects, has evolved in recent years and provides potential for developing reproducible and sophisticated physical phantoms. 3D printing technology can help rapidly develop relatively low cost phantoms with appropriate complexities, which are useful in imaging or dosimetry measurements. The need for more realistic phantoms is emerging since imaging systems are now capable of acquiring multimodal and multiparametric data. This review addresses three main questions about the 3D printers currently in use, and their produced materials. The first question investigates whether the resolution of 3D printers is sufficient for existing imaging technologies. The second question explores if the materials of 3D-printed phantoms can produce realistic images representing various tissues and organs as taken by different imaging modalities such as computer tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound (US), and mammography. The emergence of multimodal imaging increases the need for phantoms that can be scanned using different imaging modalities. The third question probes the feasibility and easiness of "printing" radioactive or nonradioactive solutions during the printing process. Methods: A systematic review of medical imaging studies published after January 2013 is performed using strict inclusion criteria. The databases used were Scopus and Web of Knowledge with specific search terms. In total, 139 papers were identified; however, only 50 were classified as relevant for this paper. In this review, following an appropriate introduction and literature research strategy, all 50 articles are presented in detail. A summary of tables and example figures of the most recent advances in 3D printing for the purposes of phantoms across different imaging modalities are provided. Results: All 50 studies printed and scanned phantoms in either CT, PET, SPECT, mammography, MRI, and US-or a combination of those modalities. According to the literature, different parameters were evaluated depending on the imaging modality used. Almost all papers evaluated more than two parameters, with the most common being Hounsfield units, density, attenuation and speed of sound. Conclusions: The development of this field is rapidly evolving and becoming more refined. There is potential to reach the ultimate goal of using 3D phantoms to get feedback on imaging scanners and reconstruction algorithms more regularly. Although the development of imaging phantoms is evident, there are still some limitations to address: One of which is printing accuracy, due to the printer properties. Another limitation is the materials available to print: There are not enough materials to mimic all the tissue properties. For example, one material can mimic one property-such as the density of real tissue-but not any other property, like speed of sound or attenuation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Characterization Of 3d-printed Phantom Spatial Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A1 Computed Tomographymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Recent advances on the development of phantoms using 3D printing for imaging with CT, MRI, PET, SPECT, and ultrasound

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…19 Ceh et al were able to overcome this limitation using filaments that were manufactured by a third party, consisting of combinations of bismuth and ABS, to print both radiopaque 3D bone phantoms and x ray shielding equipment on an FDM printer. 20 It is noteworthy that bismuth has a K-edge at 90.5 keV, and therefore does not mimic tissue properties at specific x ray energies, but rather is only attenuating in aggregate. Madamesila et al used an FDM printer and (commercially available) high impact polystyrene filament to fabricate low density phantoms for use in radiotherapy quality assurance applications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three‐dimensional printing CT‐derived objects with controllable radiopacity

Hamedani

Melvin

Vaheesan

et al. 2018

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe goal of this work was to develop phantoms for the optimization of pre‐operative computed tomography (CT) scans of the prostate artery, which are used for embolization planning.MethodsAcrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) pellets were doped with barium sulfate and extruded into filaments suitable for 3D printing on a fused deposition modeling (FDM) printer. Cylinder phantoms were created to evaluate radiopacity as a function of doping percentage. Small‐diameter tree phantoms were created to assess their composition and dimensional accuracy. A half‐pelvis phantom was created using clinical CT images, to assess the printer's control over cortical bone thickness and cancellous bone attenuation. CT‐derived prostate artery phantoms were created to simulate complex, contrast‐filled arteries.ResultsA linear relationship (R = 0.998) was observed between barium sulfate added (0%–10% by weight), and radiopacity (−31 to 1454 Hounsfield Units [HU]). Micro‐CT scans showed even distribution of the particles, with air pockets comprising 0.36% by volume. The small vessels were found to be oversized by a consistent amount of 0.08 mm. Micro‐CT scans revealed that the phantoms' interiors were completely filled in. The maximum HU values of cortical bone in the phantom were lower than that of the filament, a result of CT image reconstruction. Creation of cancellous bone regions with lower HU values, using the printer's infill parameter, was successful. Direct volume renderings of the pelvis and prostate artery were similar to the clinical CT, with the exception that the surfaces of the phantom objects were not as smooth.ConclusionsIt is possible to reliably create FDM 3D printer filaments with predictable radiopacity in a wide range of attenuation values, which can be used to print dimensionally accurate radiopaque objects derived from CT data. Phantoms of this type can be quickly and inexpensively developed to assess and optimize CT protocols for specific clinical applications.

show abstract

Methodology for computed tomography characterization of commercially available 3D printing materials for use in radiology/radiation oncology

Kozee

Weygand

Andreozzi

et al. 2023

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

3D printing in medical physics provides opportunities for creating patientspecific treatment devices and in-house fabrication of imaging/dosimetry phantoms. This study characterizes several commercial fused deposition 3D printing materials with some containing nonstandard compositions. It is important to explore their similarities to human tissues and other materials encountered in patients. Uniform cylinders with infill from 50 to 100% at six evenly distributed intervals were printed using 13 different filaments. A novel approach rotating infill angle 10 o between each layer avoids unwanted patterns. Five materials contained high-Z/metallic components. A clinical CT scanner with a range of tube potentials (70, 80, 100, 120, 140 kVp) was used. Density and average Hounsfield unit (HU) were measured.A commercial GAMMEX phantom mimicking various human tissues provides a comparison. Utility of the lookup tables produced is demonstrated. A methodology for calibrating print materials/parameters for a desired HU is presented. Density and HU were determined for all materials as a function of tube voltage (kVp) and infill percentage. The range of HU (−732.0-10047.4 HU) and physical densities (0.36-3.52 g/cm 3 ) encompassed most tissues/materials encountered in radiology/radiotherapy applications with many overlapping those of human tissues. Printing filaments doped with high-Z materials demonstrated increased attenuation due to the photoelectric effect with decreased kVp, as found in certain endogenous materials (e.g., bone). HU was faithfully reproduced (within one standard deviation) in a 3D-printed mimic of a commercial anthropomorphic phantom section. Characterization of commercially available 3D print materials facilitates custom object fabrication for use in radiology and radiation oncology, including human tissue and common exogenous implant mimics. This allows for cost reduction and increased flexibility to fabricate novel phantoms or patient-specific devices imaging and dosimetry purposes. A formalism for calibrating to specific CT scanner, printer, and filament type/batch is presented. Utility is demonstrated by printing a commercial anthropomorphic phantom copy. Jasmine A. Graham and Gage Redler contributed equally to this work.

show abstract

Bismuth Infusion of ABS Enables Additive Manufacturing of Complex Radiological Phantoms and Shielding Equipment

Cited by 54 publications

References 29 publications

Recent advances on the development of phantoms using 3D printing for imaging with CT, MRI, PET, SPECT, and ultrasound

Recent advances on the development of phantoms using 3D printing for imaging with CT, MRI, PET, SPECT, and ultrasound

Three‐dimensional printing CT‐derived objects with controllable radiopacity

Methodology for computed tomography characterization of commercially available 3D printing materials for use in radiology/radiation oncology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About