| Literature DB >> 33897793 |
Grzegorz Bielęda1,2, Grzegorz Zwierzchowski1,2, Katarzyna Rosłan3, Agnieszka Adamus3, Julian Malicki1,2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: 3D printing has become a popular and widely available technique of rapid prototyping. The impact of used materials on the dose distribution has been studied for high energy sources. However, brachytherapy sources emit lower energy photons, and materials used in 3D printing may differ. This study was conducted to analyze the influence of common materials (polylactic acid - PLA and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene - ABS) used in stereolithography.Entities:
Keywords: 3D printing; ABS; PLA; dosimetry
Year: 2021 PMID: 33897793 PMCID: PMC8060963 DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2021.105287
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy ISSN: 2081-2841
Fig. 1Design of phantom used in presented study. A) Phantom with catheters for 192Ir source; B) Phantom with inserted film holder; C) Phantom with ionization chamber holder
Fig. 2Calibration curve for EBT3 Gafchromic film
Average values of measured dose and SD with corresponding thickness of studied materials inserted between source and detector. At the bottom p-value of Spearman’s order rank test and r-value
| Thickness | PLA | ABS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Film | Farmer | Film | Farmer | |||||
| Average | SD | Average | SD | Average | SD | Average | SD | |
| 0 | 101.16 | 0.65 | 101.88 | 2.23 | 99.29 | 1.56 | 94.92 | 1.24 |
| 1 | 101.18 | 1.71 | 100.40 | 2.53 | 102.09 | 1.70 | 96.40 | 1.17 |
| 2 | 100.79 | 1.21 | 98.39 | 1.06 | 102.18 | 1.23 | 98.54 | 2.18 |
| 3 | 99.94 | 1.84 | 100.13 | 2.08 | 101.89 | 2.03 | 95.97 | 1.48 |
| 4 | 101.14 | 1.45 | 98.11 | 1.97 | 100.53 | 1.65 | 97.59 | 1.56 |
| 5 | 101.21 | 1.46 | 101.08 | 2.45 | 99.81 | 0.72 | 98.97 | 1.32 |
| 6 | 99.23 | 1.60 | 101.55 | 2.63 | 100.98 | 1.56 | 95.68 | 2.25 |
| 7 | 101.59 | 0.65 | 102.04 | 2.49 | 100.84 | 1.62 | 95.44 | 2.89 |
| 8 | 100.33 | 1.83 | 100.38 | 1.05 | 99.40 | 1.67 | 95.88 | 1.87 |
| 9 | 100.90 | 1.46 | 98.94 | 2.34 | 99.78 | 1.61 | 94.98 | 2.26 |
| 10 | 100.18 | 2.24 | 97.48 | 1.44 | 100.11 | 0.87 | 95.97 | 1.64 |
| 11 | 99.67 | 1.99 | 99.26 | 2.10 | 102.10 | 1.01 | 97.87 | 0.47 |
| 12 | 99.18 | 1.43 | 98.20 | 1.69 | 102.06 | 0.96 | 99.69 | 1.01 |
| 13 | 98.85 | 1.17 | 100.83 | 3.43 | 99.86 | 0.55 | 96.39 | 2.06 |
| 14 | 98.53 | 1.43 | 96.37 | 1.66 | 102.65 | 0.65 | 100.11 | 3.01 |
| 15 | 98.69 | 1.11 | 100.96 | 2.12 | 101.57 | 1.14 | 99.70 | 2.23 |
| 16 | 100.80 | 1.21 | 98.91 | 2.35 | 100.08 | 1.44 | 99.01 | 2.56 |
| 17 | 99.24 | 1.67 | 99.50 | 2.01 | 99.44 | 1.63 | 99.48 | 0.80 |
| 18 | 101.50 | 0.48 | 95.86 | 1.91 | 102.07 | 1.57 | 101.07 | 1.91 |
| 19 | 99.72 | 1.18 | 100.18 | 2.79 | 99.84 | 0.80 | 99.13 | 2.18 |
| 20 | 101.98 | 0.96 | 98.11 | 1.59 | 101.05 | 2.06 | 102.93 | 1.38 |
| 21 | 100.56 | 0.96 | 99.14 | 1.93 | 99.62 | 1.51 | 101.26 | 2.81 |
| 22 | 100.60 | 2.10 | 98.25 | 1.84 | 102.79 | 0.90 | 101.30 | 2.50 |
| 23 | 100.20 | 0.81 | 97.95 | 1.85 | 100.72 | 1.78 | 102.45 | 0.89 |
| 24 | 100.65 | 2.09 | 94.22 | 2.09 | 100.96 | 1.14 | 101.03 | 1.13 |
| 25 | 101.45 | 1.62 | 98.16 | 1.42 | 98.79 | 1.23 | 102.75 | 2.01 |
| 26 | 101.20 | 1.76 | 95.28 | 1.98 | 99.43 | 1.92 | 97.36 | 1.73 |
| 27 | 99.49 | 1.29 | 97.65 | 1.78 | 98.63 | 0.90 | 99.37 | 2.12 |
| 28 | 102.22 | 1.29 | 94.82 | 2.87 | 99.37 | 1.10 | 99.83 | 2.54 |
| 29 | 100.33 | 1.61 | 94.09 | 1.94 | 98.62 | 1.28 | 101.53 | 1.68 |
| 30 | 98.70 | 1.60 | 100.37 | 3.88 | 97.54 | 1.33 | 97.28 | 1.79 |
| 0.4857 | 0.00004 | 0.0159 | 0.0212 | |||||
| –0.061407 | –0.389164 | –0.216802 | 0.221230 | |||||
Fig. 3Graphs presenting average dose and measurement uncertainty in correlation to thickness of studied materials. All measured doses are within measurement uncertainty from 100% of dose calculated in water within volume of interest
Measurement uncertainty analysis
| Variable | Film (%) | Farmer (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Scanning consistency | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Film uniformity | 1.0 | 0.0 |
| ROI size | 1.5 | 0.0 |
| Calibration curve fit | 3.5 | 0.0 |
| Chamber calibration | 0.0 | 3.0 |
| Distance to source | 4.0 | 6.0 |
| Source strength | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Exposure time | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Repeatability | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Total uncertainty | 8.0 | 8.8 |