3D Printed Anatomic Models and Guides

Author(s):  
Amy E. Alexander ◽  
Nicole Wake
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauricio Toro ◽  
Aura Cardona ◽  
Daniel Restrepo ◽  
Laura Buitrago

Abstract Background Material extrusion is used to 3D print anatomic models and guides. Sterilization is required if a 3D printed part touches the patient during an intervention. Vaporized Hydrogen Peroxide (VHP) is one method of sterilization. There are four factors to consider when sterilizing an anatomic model or guide: sterility, biocompatibility, mechanical properties, and geometric fidelity. This project focuses on geometric fidelity for material extrusion of one polymer acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) using VHP. Methods De-identified computed tomography (CT) image data from 16 patients was segmented using Mimics Innovation Suite (Materialise NV, Leuven, Belgium). Eight patients had maxillary and mandibular defects depicted with the anatomic models, and eight had mandibular defects for the anatomic guides. Anatomic models and guides designed from the surfaces of CT scan reconstruction and segementation were 3D printed in medical-grade acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) material extrusion. The 16 parts underwent low-temperature sterilization with VHP. The dimensional error was estimated after sterilization by comparing scanned images of the 3D printed parts. Results The average of the estimated mean differences between the printed pieces before and after sterilization were − 0,011 ± 0,252 mm (95%CI − 0,011; − 0,010) for the models and 0,003 ± 0,057 mm (95%CI 0,002; 0,003) for the guides. Regarding the dimensional error of the sterilized parts compared to the original design, the estimated mean differences were − 0,082 ± 0,626 mm (95%CI − 0,083; − 0,081) for the models and 0,126 ± 0,205 mm (95%CI 0,126, 0,127) for the guides. Conclusion This project tested and verified dimensional stability, one of the four prerequisites for introducing vaporized hydrogen peroxide into 3D printing of anatomic models and guides; the 3D printed parts maintained dimensional stability after sterilization.


Author(s):  
Nicole Wake ◽  
Benjamin Johnson ◽  
Shuai Leng

2015 ◽  
Vol 148 (4) ◽  
pp. S-227-S-228
Author(s):  
Karen J. Dickinson ◽  
Stephen D. Cassivi ◽  
J Matthew Reinersman ◽  
Jane S. Matsumoto ◽  
Joel G. Fletcher ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 161 (4) ◽  
pp. 705-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher M. Low ◽  
Jonathan M. Morris ◽  
Jane S. Matsumoto ◽  
Janalee K. Stokken ◽  
Erin K. O’Brien ◽  
...  

Objective To examine the impact of 2-dimensional (2D) illustrations and 3-dimensonal (3D)–printed anatomic models of the frontal sinuses according to the International Frontal Sinus Anatomy Classification in the education of otolaryngology and radiology residents. Study Design A crossover study design with half of the study participants randomized to the 2D illustration intervention first and the other half randomized to the 3D-printed model first. Setting Regularly scheduled resident didactic lectures at a tertiary care center. Subjects and Methods Forty-one otolaryngology and radiology residents were assessed with pre- and postintervention questionnaires that included subjective and objective methods of assessment. Results Overall, there was a statistically significant improvement in total number of answers correct and in confidence score between the pre- and postintervention assessments ( P < .0001). The primary outcome of order of intervention (ie, 2D → 3D vs 3D → 2D) did not result in statistically significant differences in postevaluation scores. In regard to the secondary outcome of learner preference for educational modality, radiology residents favored the 2D illustrations to understand anatomic relationships, while otolaryngology residents preferred the 3D model to be more helpful in surgical planning ( P = .0075). Conclusion There is no difference between 2D-illustrated and 3D-printed International Frontal Sinus Anatomy Classification anatomic models in overall educational outcome, despite the preference of learners. Together, these models can be used as helpful tools in frontal sinus education for otolaryngology and radiology trainees.


2020 ◽  
Vol 127 ◽  
pp. 109011
Author(s):  
Benjamin Fritz ◽  
Sandro F. Fucentese ◽  
Stefan M. Zimmermann ◽  
Philippe M. Tscholl ◽  
Reto Sutter ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document