BACKGROUND: Selective laser sintering (SLS), three-dimensional printing (3DP) and PolyJet are rapid prototyping (RP) techniques to fabricate prototypes from virtual biomedical images. To be used in maxillofacial surgery, these models must accurately reproduce the craniofacial skeleton. PURPOSE: To analyze the capacity of SLS, 3DP and PolyJet models to reproduce mandibular anatomy and their dimensional error. MATERIAL: Dry mandible, helical CT images, SLS, 3DP and PolyJet prototypes, and digital electronic caliper. METHODS: Helical CT images were acquired from a dry mandible (criterion standard) and manipulated with the InVesalius software. Prototypes were produced using SLS, 3DP and PolyJet techniques. Thirteen linear measurements of each prototype were made and compared with the dry mandible measurements. RESULTS: The results showed a dimensional error of 1.79%, 3.14% and 2.14% for SLS, 3DP and PolyJet models, respectively. The models satisfactorily reproduced anatomic details and the SLS and PolyJet prototypes showed greater dimensional precision and reproduced mandibular anatomy more accurately than the 3DP model. CONCLUSIONS: The SLS prototype had a greater dimensional accuracy than the PolyJet and 3DP models. The PolyJet technique reproduced anatomic details of the mandible more accurately.
BACKGROUND: Selective laser sintering (SLS), three-dimensional printing (3DP) and PolyJet are rapid prototyping (RP) techniques to fabricate prototypes from virtual biomedical images. To be used in maxillofacial surgery, these models must accurately reproduce the craniofacial skeleton. PURPOSE: To analyze the capacity of SLS, 3DP and PolyJet models to reproduce mandibular anatomy and their dimensional error. MATERIAL: Dry mandible, helical CT images, SLS, 3DP and PolyJet prototypes, and digital electronic caliper. METHODS: Helical CT images were acquired from a dry mandible (criterion standard) and manipulated with the InVesalius software. Prototypes were produced using SLS, 3DP and PolyJet techniques. Thirteen linear measurements of each prototype were made and compared with the dry mandible measurements. RESULTS: The results showed a dimensional error of 1.79%, 3.14% and 2.14% for SLS, 3DP and PolyJet models, respectively. The models satisfactorily reproduced anatomic details and the SLS and PolyJet prototypes showed greater dimensional precision and reproduced mandibular anatomy more accurately than the 3DP model. CONCLUSIONS: The SLS prototype had a greater dimensional accuracy than the PolyJet and 3DP models. The PolyJet technique reproduced anatomic details of the mandible more accurately.
Authors: Dimitris Mitsouras; Peter Liacouras; Amir Imanzadeh; Andreas A Giannopoulos; Tianrun Cai; Kanako K Kumamaru; Elizabeth George; Nicole Wake; Edward J Caterson; Bohdan Pomahac; Vincent B Ho; Gerald T Grant; Frank J Rybicki Journal: Radiographics Date: 2015 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333