Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

3D Printing of CT Dataset: Validation of an Open Source and Consumer-Available Workflow

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The broad availability of cheap three-dimensional (3D) printing equipment has raised the need for a thorough analysis on its effects on clinical accuracy. Our aim is to determine whether the accuracy of 3D printing process is affected by the use of a low-budget workflow based on open source software and consumer’s commercially available 3D printers. A group of test objects was scanned with a 64-slice computed tomography (CT) in order to build their 3D copies. CT datasets were elaborated using a software chain based on three free and open source software. Objects were printed out with a commercially available 3D printer. Both the 3D copies and the test objects were measured using a digital professional caliper. Overall, the objects’ mean absolute difference between test objects and 3D copies is 0.23 mm and the mean relative difference amounts to 0.55 %. Our results demonstrate that the accuracy of 3D printing process remains high despite the use of a low-budget workflow.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rengier F, Mehndiratta A, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Zechmann CM, Unterhinninghofen R, Kauczor HU, Giesel FL: 3D printing based on imaging data: review of medical applications. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 5(4):335–341, 2010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bizzotto N, Sandri A, Regis D, Romani D, Tami I, Magnan B: Three-dimensional printing of bone fractures: a new tangible realistic way for preoperative planning and education. Surg Innov, 2014. doi:10.1177/1553350614547773

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tam MD, Laycock SD, Brown JR, Jakeways M: 3D printing of an aortic aneurysm to facilitate decision making and device selection for endovascular aneurysm repair in complex neck anatomy. J Endovasc Ther 20(6):863–867, 2013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Spottiswoode BS, van den Heever DJ, Chang Y, Engelhardt S, Du Plessis S, Nicolls F, Hartzenberg HB, Gretschel A: Preoperative three-dimensional model creation of magnetic resonance brain images as a tool to assist neurosurgical planning. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 91(3):162–169, 2013

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Esses SJ, Berman P, Bloom AI, Sosna J: Clinical applications of physical 3D models derived from MDCT data and created by rapid prototyping. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196(6):W683–W688, 2011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Smet MH, Marchal GJ, Baert AL, Van Hoe L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Daniels H, Molenaers G, Moens P, Fabry G: Three-dimensional imaging of acetabular dysplasia: diagnostic value and impact on surgical type classification. Eur J Radiol 34(1):26–31, 2000

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ibrahim D, Broilo TL, Heitz C, de Oliveira MG, de Oliveira HW, Nobre SM, Dos Santos Filho JH, Silva DN: Dimensional error of selective laser sintering, three-dimensional printing and PolyJet models in the reproduction of mandibular anatomy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 37(3):167–173, 2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Asaumi J, Kawai N, Honda Y, Shigehara H, Wakasa T, Kishi K: Comparison of three-dimensional computed tomography with rapid prototype models in the management of coronoid hyperplasia. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 30:330–335, 2001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fourie Z, Damstra J, Schepers RH, Gerrits PO, Ren Y: Segmentation process significantly influences the accuracy of 3D surface models derived from cone beam computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 81(4):e524–e530, 2012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Silva DN, Gerhardt de Oliveira M, Meurer E, Meurer MI, Lopes da Silva JV, Santa-Bárbara A: Dimensional error in selective laser sintering and 3D-printing of models for craniomaxillary anatomy reconstruction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 36(8):443–449, 2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Salmi M, Paloheimo KS, Tuomi J, Wolff J, Mäkitie A: Accuracy of medical models made by additive manufacturing (rapid manufacturing). J Craniomaxillofac Surg 41(7):603–609, 2013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Murugesan K, Anandapandian PA, Sharma SK, Vasantha Kumar M: Comparative evaluation of dimension and surface detail accuracy of models produced by three different rapid prototype techniques. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 12(1):16–20, 2012

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Frühwald J, Schicho KA, Figl M, Benesch T, Watzinger F, Kainberger F: Accuracy of craniofacial measurements: computed tomography and three-dimensional computed tomography compared with stereolithographic models. J Craniofac Surg 19(1):22–26, 2008

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. El-Katatny I, Masood SH, Morsi YS: Error analysis of FDM fabricated medical replicas. Rapid Prototyp J 16:36e43, 2010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Huotilainen E, Jaanimets R, Valášek J, Marcián P, Salmi M, Tuomi J, Mäkitie A, Wolff J: Inaccuracies in additive manufactured medical skull models caused by the DICOM to STL conversion process. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 42(5):e259–e265, 2014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fasel JH, Beinemann J, Schaller K, Gailloud P: A critical inventory of preoperative skull replicas. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 95(6):401–404, 2013

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

None

Conflicts of Interest

None for all authors

Ethics Statement

All human and animal studies have been approved and performed in accordance with ethical standards, and informed consent was obtained.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiology Department, Ospedale Maggiore di Lodi, Piazzale Donatori di Sangue, Lodi, Italy

    Chandra Bortolotto, Esmeralda Eshja, Caterina Peroni, Matteo A. Orlandi & Paolo Poggi

  2. Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Polo Chirurgico Confortini, Verona, Italy

    Nicola Bizzotto

Authors
  1. Chandra Bortolotto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Esmeralda Eshja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Caterina Peroni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matteo A. Orlandi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nicola Bizzotto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paolo Poggi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chandra Bortolotto.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Video tutorial Osirix (MOV 6635 kb)

Video tutorial MeshLab (MOV 8493 kb)

Video tutorial Cura (MOV 9662 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bortolotto, C., Eshja, E., Peroni, C. et al. 3D Printing of CT Dataset: Validation of an Open Source and Consumer-Available Workflow. J Digit Imaging 29, 14–21 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-015-9810-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-015-9810-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation