Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging Factors Impacting on Accuracy and Radiation Dose in 3D Printing

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To compare reconstructed area and surface roughness of 3D models acquired using nine image acquisition protocols. Radiation dose was also compared among acquisition protocols.

Methods

A dry craniofacial specimen was scanned using three CT devices (a cone beam CT, a 16-channel fan beam CT, and a 64-channel fan beam CT), with three different acquisition protocols each. Nine 3D models were manufactured using polylactic acid. Surface roughness and reconstructed area were determined for each 3D model. The radiation dose during acquisitions was measured using lithium crystals. ANOVA was used to compare the data among the 3D models. Linear function optimization techniques based on stochastic variables were applied to identify the most suitable protocol for use.

Results

For surface roughness, statistically significant differences were observed among all 3D models and the specimen. For reconstructed area, CBCT and one CT-16 channel protocols originated 3D models statistically significant different from the specimen. Higher radiation doses were observed with fan beam CT acquisitions.

Conclusions

All three CT devices were suitable for 3D printing when used at full resolution. The highest reconstruct area vs. radiation dose ratio was found for 64-channel CT devices.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sannomiya EK, Silva JV, Brito AA, Saez DM, Angelieri F, Dalben Gda S (2008) Surgical planning for resection of an ameloblastoma and reconstruction of the mandible using a selective laser sintering 3D biomodel. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106:36–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Erickson DM, Chance D, Schmitt S, Mathis J (1999) An opinion survery of reported benefits from the use of stereolithographic models. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 57:1040–1043

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sykes LM, Parrott AM, Owen CP, Snaddon DR (2004) Applications of rapid prototyping technology in maxillofacial prosthetics. Int J Prosthodont 17:454–459

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Suomalainen A, Stoor P, Mesimäki K, Kontio RK (2015) Rapid prototyping modelling in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a two year retrospective study. J Clin Exp Dent 7:e605–e612

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bibb R, Winder J (2010) A review of the issues surrounding three-dimensional computed tomography for medical modelling using rapid prototyping techniques. Radiography 16:78–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Santolaria J, Jiménez R, Rada M, Loscos F (2014) Error compensation method for improving the accuracy of biomodels obtained from CBCT data. Med Eng Phys 36:397–404

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Winder J, Bibb R (2005) Medical rapid prototyping technologies: state of the art and current limitations for application in oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63:1006–1015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y, Denis K, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R et al (2010) A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part II: on 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol 75:270–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lermen CA, Liedke GS, Silveira HED, da Silveira HL, Mazzola AA, de Figueiredo JA (2010) Comparison between two tomographic sections in the diagnosis of external root resorption. J Appl Oral Sci 183:303–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ziegler CM, Woertche R, Brief J, Hassfeld S (2002) Clinical indications for digital volume tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 31:126–130

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nakagawa Y, Kobayashi K, Ishii H, Mishima A, Ishii H, Asada K et al (2002) Preoperative application of limited cone beam computerized tomography as an assessment tool before minor oral surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 31:322–326

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Liedke GS, da Silveira HE, da Silveira HL, Dutra V, de Figueiredo JA (2009) Influence of voxel size in the diagnostic ability of cone beam tomography to evaluate simulated external root resorption. J Endod 35:233–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Berry E, Brown JM, Connell M, Craven CM, Efford ND, Radjenovic A et al (1997) Preliminary experience with medical aplications of rapid prototyping by selective laser sintering. Med Eng Phys 19:90–96

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kragskov J, Sindet-Pedersen S, Gyldensted C, Jensen KL (1996) A comparison of three-dimensional computed tomography scans and stereolithographic models for evaluation of craniofacial anomalies. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 54:402–411

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Choi JY, Choi JH, Kim NK, Kim Y, Kim Y, Lee JK et al (2002) Analysis of errors in medical rapid prototyping models. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 31:23–32

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M (2008) Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106:106–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kwong JC, Palomo JM, Landers MA, Figueroa A, Hans MG (2008) Image quality produced by different cone-beam computed tomography settings. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133:317–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ludlow JB, Laster WS, See M, Bailey LJ, Hershey HG (2007) Accuracy of measurements of mandibular anatomy in cone beam computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 103:534–542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ibrahim D, Broilo TL, Heitz C, de Oliveira MG, de Oliveira HW, Nobre SM et al (2009) Dimensional error of selective laser sintering, three-dimensional printing and PolyJet models in the reproduction of mandibular anatomy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 37:167–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schulzed D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, Adam G (2004) Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4- and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:83–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Laubele M, Jacobs R, Maes F, Schutyser F, Debaveye D, Bogaerts R et al (2006) Radiation dose vs. image quality for low-dose CT protocols of the head for maxillofacial surgery and oral implant planning. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 117:211–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Spin-Neto R, Mudrak J, Matzen LH, Christensen J, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A (2013) Cone beam CT image artefacts related to head motion simulated by a robot skull: visual characteristics and impact on image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 42:32310645

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U et al (2011) Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 40:265–273

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Maxillofacial Prosthesis, School of Dentistry, Universidad de la Republica, Las Heras 1925, Montevideo, Uruguay

    Jorge Javier de Lima Moreno & Roberto Soler

  2. Department of Stomatology, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil

    Gabriela Salatino Liedke

  3. Department of Surgery and Orthopedics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

    Heloisa Emília Dias da Silveira & Heraldo Luis Dias da Silveira

Authors
  1. Jorge Javier de Lima Moreno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriela Salatino Liedke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roberto Soler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Heloisa Emília Dias da Silveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Heraldo Luis Dias da Silveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorge Javier de Lima Moreno.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Lima Moreno, J.J., Liedke, G.S., Soler, R. et al. Imaging Factors Impacting on Accuracy and Radiation Dose in 3D Printing. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 17, 582–587 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-018-1098-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-018-1098-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation