Quality assurance in 3D-printing: A dimensional accuracy study of patient-specific 3D-printed vascular anatomical models

Abstract

3D printing enables the rapid manufacture of patient-specific anatomical models that substantially improve patient consultation and offer unprecedented opportunities for surgical planning and training. However, the multistep preparation process may inadvertently lead to inaccurate anatomical representations which may impact clinical decision making detrimentally. Here, we investigated the dimensional accuracy of patient-specific vascular anatomical models manufactured via digital anatomical segmentation and Fused-Deposition Modelling (FDM), Stereolithography (SLA), Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), and PolyJet 3D printing, respectively. All printing modalities reliably produced hand-held patient-specific models of high quality. Quantitative assessment revealed an overall dimensional error of 0.20 ± 3.23%, 0.53 ± 3.16%, −0.11 ± 2.81% and −0.72 ± 2.72% for FDM, SLA, PolyJet and SLS printed models, respectively, compared to unmodified Computed Tomography Angiograms (CTAs) data. Comparison of digital 3D models to CTA data revealed an average relative dimensional error of −0.83 ± 2.13% resulting from digital anatomical segmentation and processing. Therefore, dimensional error resulting from the print modality alone were 0.76 ± 2.88%, + 0.90 ± 2.26%, + 1.62 ± 2.20% and +0.88 ± 1.97%, for FDM, SLA, PolyJet and SLS printed models, respectively. Impact on absolute measurements of feature size were minimal and assessment of relative error showed a propensity for models to be marginally underestimated. This study revealed a high level of dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed patient-specific vascular anatomical models, suggesting they meet the requirements to be used as medical devices for clinical applications.

3D capturing anatomic complex biomodel in medicine veterinary: how to prepare, digitize and replicate the male canine urogenital system

“…Automatic digital segmentation in routine medical tomographic images is unsatisfactory for its use as a tool for obtaining complex anatomical arrangements (Figure 4). Due to the limitations of the CT technique, soft tissues have a low degree of distinction and identification quality, making it impossible to carry out the complete segmentation of the desired structures (JEFFERY et al, 2011;NGUYEN et al, 2023).…”

“…3D printed anatomical biomodels provide the advantage of training cases even in nonmineralized tissues with accuracy. Since the dimensions of the part captured by tomography are the same as the printed biomodels, having less than ± 2% of general dimensional variation NGUYEN et al, 2023).…”

Pore parameter selection for fused deposition modeling of gas diffusion layers in proton exchange membrane fuel cells

“…The fused deposition modeling (FDM) printing technique, also referred to as fused filament fabrication, has experienced significant advancement in recent years, 34,35 and stands out as the most prevalent and favored method 36 . Known for its simplicity and cost‐effectiveness, FDM has gained widespread use across diverse industries due to its capability to produce intricate 3D objects at a lower cost compared with traditional methods, all while maintaining reasonable dimensional accuracy 37–39 . Consequently, FDM has become a popular choice for rapid prototyping and the production of complex parts 32 .…”

“…36 Known for its simplicity and cost-effectiveness, FDM has gained widespread use across diverse industries due to its capability to produce intricate 3D objects at a lower cost compared with traditional methods, all while maintaining reasonable dimensional accuracy. [37][38][39] Consequently, FDM has become a popular choice for rapid prototyping and the production of complex parts. 32 Noteworthy is the substantial reduction in the cost of FDM printing, attracting increased attention and adoption of the technique.…”

Dental Material Selection for the Additive Manufacturing of Removable Complete Dentures (RCD)

“…Currently, a wide variety of 3D printers are available, including various physical principles of layer-by-layer deposition. To this end, prosthesis accuracy is a tangible drawback [ 14 , 15 ]. However, the prospects of AM in dentistry are beyond dispute [ 16 ].…”