BACKGROUND: Selective laser sintering (SLS) and three-dimensional printing (3DPtrade mark) are rapid prototyping (RP) techniques to fabricate prototypes from biomedical images. To be used in maxillofacial surgery, these models must accurately reproduce the craniofacial skeleton. PURPOSE: To analyze the capacity of SLS and 3DPtrade mark models to reproduce craniomaxillary anatomy and their dimensional error. MATERIAL: Dry skull, helical computed-tomography images, SLS and 3DPtrade mark prototypes, and electronic calliper. METHODS: Tomographic images of a dry skull were manipulated with the InVesalius biomedical software. Prototypes were fabricated using SLS and 3DPtrade mark techniques. Ten linear measurements were made on the models and compared with corresponding dry skull measurements (criterion standard) carried out with an electronic calliper. RESULTS: We observed a dimensional error of 2.10 and 2.67% for SLS and 3DPtrade mark models, respectively. The models satisfactorily reproduced anatomic details, except for thin bones, small foramina and acute bone projections. The SLS prototypes showed greater dimensional precision and reproduced craniomaxillary anatomy more accurately than the 3DPtrade mark models. CONCLUSION: Both SLS and 3DPtrade mark models provided acceptable precision and may be useful aids in most maxillofacial surgeries.
BACKGROUND: Selective laser sintering (SLS) and three-dimensional printing (3DPtrade mark) are rapid prototyping (RP) techniques to fabricate prototypes from biomedical images. To be used in maxillofacial surgery, these models must accurately reproduce the craniofacial skeleton. PURPOSE: To analyze the capacity of SLS and 3DPtrade mark models to reproduce craniomaxillary anatomy and their dimensional error. MATERIAL: Dry skull, helical computed-tomography images, SLS and 3DPtrade mark prototypes, and electronic calliper. METHODS: Tomographic images of a dry skull were manipulated with the InVesalius biomedical software. Prototypes were fabricated using SLS and 3DPtrade mark techniques. Ten linear measurements were made on the models and compared with corresponding dry skull measurements (criterion standard) carried out with an electronic calliper. RESULTS: We observed a dimensional error of 2.10 and 2.67% for SLS and 3DPtrade mark models, respectively. The models satisfactorily reproduced anatomic details, except for thin bones, small foramina and acute bone projections. The SLS prototypes showed greater dimensional precision and reproduced craniomaxillary anatomy more accurately than the 3DPtrade mark models. CONCLUSION: Both SLS and 3DPtrade mark models provided acceptable precision and may be useful aids in most maxillofacial surgeries.