Journal of the Korean Physical Society

, Volume 69, Issue 5, pp 852–857 | Cite as

Fabrication of a customized bone scaffold using a homemade medical 3D printer for comminuted fractures

  • Do-Kun Yoon
  • Joo-Young Jung
  • Han-Back Shin
  • Moo-Sub Kim
  • Bo-Young Choe
  • Sunmi Kim
  • Tae Suk Suh
  • Keum Sil Lee
  • Lei Xing


The purpose of this study was to show a 3D printed reconstruction model of a bone destroyed by a comminuted fracture. After a thoracic limb of a cow with a comminuted fracture was scanned by using computed tomography, a scaffold was designed by using a 3D modeling tool for its reconstruction and fabricated by using a homemade medical 3D printer. The homemade medical 3D printer was designed for medical use. In order to reconstruct the geometry of the destroyed bone, we use the geometry of a similar section (reference geometry) of normal bone in the 3D modeling process. The missing part between the destroyed ridge and the reference geometry was filled with an effective space by using a manual interpolation. Inexpensive materials and free software were used to construct the medical 3D printer system. The fabrication of the scaffold progressed according to the design of reconstructed bone by using this medical 3D printer. The material of the scaffold was biodegradable material, and could be transplanted into the human body. The fabricated scaffold was correctly inserted into the fractured bone in place of the destroyed portion, with good agreement. According to physical stress test results, the performance of printing resolution was 0.1 mm. The average geometrical error of the scaffold was below 0.3 mm. The reconstructed bone by using the fabricated scaffold was able to support the weight of the human body. No process used to obtain the result was complex or required many resources. The methods and results in this study show several possible clinical applications in fields such as orthopedics or oncology without a need to purchase high-price instruments for 3D printing.


Medical 3D printer Comminuted fracture Scaffold Physical test 

PACS numbers

87.15.Aa 87.10.+e 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    A. Businger, P. R. Thomas and C. Sommer, Injury 41, 583 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Siebenlist et al., Injury 41, 1306 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    T. Shimizu et al., Injury 43, 940 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    J. A. Disegi and L. Eschbach, Injury 31, D2 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    S. V. Murphy, A. Atala, Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 773 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    S. Choi, H. Kang and H. Bang, Injury 45, 1280 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    E. F. Morgan et al., Bone 44, 335 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    K. R. O’Neill et al., Bone 50, 1357 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    B. Liu et al., Comput. Med. Imaging Graph. 38, 233 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    C. X. F. Lam et al., Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 20, 49 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. Lee, J. C. Dunn and B. M. Wu, Biomaterials 26, 4281 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    E. Jeandupeux, V. Lobjois and B. Ducommun, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 463, 1141 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    H. J. Lee et al., Injury 44, 465 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    P. Lichte et al., Injury 42, 569 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    L. M. Mathieu et al., Biomaterials 27, 905 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    R. Olszewski, P. Szymor and M. Kozakiewicz, J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 42, 1847 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    A. L. Jardini et al., J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 42, 1877 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    A. Butscher et al., Acta. Biomater. 7, 907 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Q. Zhang et al., Sci. Rep. 5, 8936 (2015).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    L. Ciocca et al., Clin. Oral. Implants Res. 22, 850 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    S. J. Hollister, Nat. mater. 4, 518 (2005).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Y. He, G. H. Xue and J. Z. Fu, Sci. Rep. 4, 6973 (2014).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    D. Palousek, J. Rosicky and D. Koutny, Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 38, 171 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    L. Horváth et al., Sci. Rep. 5, 7974 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    A. I. Birkhold et al., Bone 66, 15 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    K. Iwata et al., Bone 64, 183 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    S. Rehman, T.A. Damron and C. Geel, Injury 31, 783 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    K. H. Yang, Injury 36, 75 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    R. N. Thompson, C. L. Armstrong and G. Heyburn, Bone 61, 44 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    J. Ho-Seung et al., Arch. Orthop. Trauma. Surg. 134, 1551 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    H. Huajun et al., Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 38, 109 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    E. Maravelakis et al., J. Med. Eng. Technol. 32, 115 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Physical Society 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Do-Kun Yoon
    • 1
  • Joo-Young Jung
    • 1
  • Han-Back Shin
    • 1
  • Moo-Sub Kim
    • 1
  • Bo-Young Choe
    • 1
  • Sunmi Kim
    • 1
  • Tae Suk Suh
    • 1
  • Keum Sil Lee
    • 2
  • Lei Xing
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical Engineering and Research Institute of Biomedical Engineering, College of MedicineCatholic University of KoreaSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, School of MedicineStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiation Oncology, School of MedicineStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations