Safety of Drilling 3-Dimensional–Printed Temporal Bones

Freiser, Monika E.; Ghodadra, Anish; Hart, L. A.; Griffith, Christopher C.; Jabbour, Noel

doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2018.1516

Cited by 20 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Safety concerns regarding harmful contents of models made with ABS, PLA and Resin materials have been investigated previously. 12 Freiser and colleagues measured volatile organic compounds that were deemed harmful during drilling of printed models and found all to be lower than the recommended exposure limits. 12 However, that study only included known contaminants and, depending on the manufacturer of these materials, the composition and content of the print materials may vary.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 Freiser and colleagues measured volatile organic compounds that were deemed harmful during drilling of printed models and found all to be lower than the recommended exposure limits. 12 However, that study only included known contaminants and, depending on the manufacturer of these materials, the composition and content of the print materials may vary. Therefore, despite the suggested safety of these models during printing, drilling and cutting, monitoring and safety testing of these materials depending on the material used may be advisable per institutional standards.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[6][7][8][9][10][11] Of these techniques, SLA and material jetting techniques have been more extensively used in creating models for presurgical planning and educational purposes due to the higher detail and quality of the resulting models; however, there are also reports of FDM techniques producing good quality models. 2,3,10,12 These techniques have been shown to be highly repeatable in producing replicas with minimal overestimation of dimensions only in larger replicas. 13 There are no studies comparing the quality, technical specifications and cost associated with producing 3D printed canine tibia bone models as potential surrogates for cadaveric models for educational purposes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Qualitative Assessment of Four Types of Three-Dimensional Printed Anatomical Tibial Bone Models Compared to Commercially Available Models

Malek

Foster

Huston

2020

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim of this study was to compare technical and physical features of four three-dimensional printed bone models used for teaching purposes to commercial models. Study Design A canine tibia was imaged using computed tomography and used for model development. Tibial models were printed using Resin, polylactide acid (PLA), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and high-impact polystyrene (HIPS). They were compared with two commercial models (SAWBONES 2117 and 2108). Models were drilled in three locations and then cut transversely. Subjective quality of models, time and cost of production were compared. Results Print time was approximately 3 hours for Resin and 4 hours for each of the PLA, ABS and HIPS models. Unlike the Resin and SAWBONES, the PLA, HIPS and ABS had higher heat generation during both drilling and cutting with mild construct deformation at cut surfaces in ABS and PLA models. Characteristics of real bone during drilling and cutting were best simulated in decreasing order by Resin, PLA, ABS and HIPS followed by SAWBONES 2117 and 2108 models. Material costs were $14.6 (Resin), $0.48 (PLA/ABS), $1.52 (HIPS), $23.50 and $17.50 for SAWBONES 2117 and 2108 per model, respectively. Resin performed best and had the closest subjective tactile properties to real bone. Conclusion The three-dimensional printed tibial bone models provide a cost-effective alternative to commercially available bone models in veterinary medicine as teaching models.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Qualitative Assessment of Four Types of Three-Dimensional Printed Anatomical Tibial Bone Models Compared to Commercially Available Models

Malek

Foster

Huston

2020

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…17 Despite development of 3D-printed TBs for simulation, few studies have investigated safety of aerosolized particles produced when drilling the printed models. Freiser et al 18 studied the safety of commonly used printing materials by looking at presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and total particle (TP) count exposure at Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) actionable levels. VOC and TP levels were found to be less than the detection limit with the exception of isopropyl alcohol used in the creation of polyarylate models.…”

Section: Comparing Differentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Materials Used for 3D-Printing Temporal Bone Models to Simulate Surgical Dissection

McMillan

Kocharyan

Dekker

et al. 2020

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To identify 3D-printed temporal bone (TB) models that most accurately recreate cortical mastoidectomy for use as a training tool by comparison of different materials and fabrication methods. Background: There are several different printers and materials available to create 3D-printed TB models for surgical planning and trainee education. Current reports using Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) plastic generated via fused deposition modeling (FDM) have validated the capacity for 3D-printed models to serve as accurate surgical simulators. Here, a head-to-head comparison of models produced using different materials and fabrication processes was performed to identify superior models for application in skull base surgical training. Methods: High-resolution CT scans of normal TBs were used to create stereolithography files with image conversion for application in 3D-printing. The 3D-printed models were constructed using five different materials and four printers, including ABS printed on a MakerBot 2x printer, photopolymerizable polymer (Photo) using the Objet 350 Connex3 Printer, polycarbonate (PC) using the FDM-Fortus 400 mc printer, and two types of photocrosslinkable acrylic resin, white and blue (FLW and FLB, respectively), using the Formlabs Form 2 stereolithography printer. Printed TBs were drilled to assess the haptic experience and recreation of TB anatomy with comparison to the current paradigm of ABS. Results: Surgical drilling demonstrated that FLW models created by FDM as well as PC and Photo models generated using photopolymerization more closely recreated cortical mastoidectomy compared to ABS models. ABS generated odor and did not represent the anatomy accurately. Blue resin performed poorly in simulation, likely due to its dark color and translucent appearance. Conclusions: PC, Photo, and FLW models best replicated surgical drilling and anatomy as compared to ABS and FLB models. These prototypes are reliable simulators for surgical training.

show abstract

“…The safety of drilling several 3D-printed temporal bone models of different materials was studied by Jabbour et al in 2018 and found to comply with occupational hazard standards. 6…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi‐institutional Comparison of Temporal Bone Models: A Collaboration of the AAO‐HNSF 3D‐Printed Temporal Bone Working Group

Mowry

Jabbour

Rose

et al. 2020

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation’s (AAO-HNSF’s) 3D-Printed Temporal Bone Working Group was formed with the goal of sharing information and experience relating to the development of 3D-printed temporal bone models. The group conducted a multi-institutional study to directly compare several recently developed models. Study Design Expert opinion survey. Setting Temporal bone laboratory. Methods The working group convened in 2018. The various methods in which 3D virtual models had been created and printed in physical form were then shared and recorded. This allowed for comparison of the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of each method. In addition, a drilling event was held during the October 2018 AAO-HNSF Annual Meeting. Each model was drilled and evaluated by attending-level working group members using an 15-question Likert scale questionnaire. The models were graded on anatomic accuracy as well as their suitability as a simulation of both cadaveric and operative temporal bone drilling. Results The models produced for this study demonstrate significant anatomic detail and a likeness to human cadaver specimens for drilling and dissection. Models printed in standard resin material with a stereolithography printer scored highest in the evaluation, though the margin of difference was negligible in several categories. Conclusion Simulated 3D temporal bones created through a number of printing methods have potential benefit in surgical training, preoperative simulation for challenging otologic cases, and the standardized testing of temporal bone surgical skills.

show abstract

Safety of Drilling 3-Dimensional–Printed Temporal Bones

Cited by 20 publications

References 15 publications

Qualitative Assessment of Four Types of Three-Dimensional Printed Anatomical Tibial Bone Models Compared to Commercially Available Models

Qualitative Assessment of Four Types of Three-Dimensional Printed Anatomical Tibial Bone Models Compared to Commercially Available Models

Comparison of Materials Used for 3D-Printing Temporal Bone Models to Simulate Surgical Dissection

Multi‐institutional Comparison of Temporal Bone Models: A Collaboration of the AAO‐HNSF 3D‐Printed Temporal Bone Working Group

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About