| Literature DB >> 29576649 |
M V Reddy1, Krishnakiran Eachempati2, A V Gurava Reddy1, Aakash Mugalur3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid prototyping (RP) is used widely in dental and faciomaxillary surgery with anecdotal uses in orthopedics. The purview of RP in orthopedics is vast. However, there is no error analysis reported in the literature on bone models generated using office-based RP. This study evaluates the accuracy of fused deposition modeling (FDM) using standard tessellation language (STL) files and errors generated during the fabrication of bone models.Entities:
Keywords: Analysis; CAT scanners; autograft; bone; computed tomography; error; imaging; model; printing; three-dimensional; x-ray
Year: 2018 PMID: 29576649 PMCID: PMC5858215 DOI: 10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_312_16
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Orthop ISSN: 0019-5413 Impact factor: 1.251
Figure 1Near-anatomical three-dimensional printed bone models in comparison with the dry bones obtained from the anatomical department. (a) Femur. (b) Tibia. (c) Humerus. (d) Radius. (e) Ulna. (f) Calcaneum. (g) First metatarsal. (h) Clavicle. (i) Talus
Figure 2The comparative measurements of the humerus. (a and d) The measurement of length of the dry bone and the 3D model using the osteometric board. (b and e) The comparable values of the humeral head measurement using digital caliper for dry bone and the 3D model. (c and f) showing the comparable inter-epicondylar distance of the humerus for the dry bone and 3D model. 3D=Three-dimensional
Intraclass correlation coefficient: Dry bone
Intraclass correlation coefficient: Three-dimensional model
Depicting the median, minimum and maximum along with mean and standard deviation of the individual bones
Figure 3Box plot shows the difference between the dry and three-dimensional modeling of first and second observer
Figure 4Compound bar diagram showing the difference between dry and three-dimensional modeling of first and second observer according to the type of bone