Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 26, 2025
3D Printing of Preclinical X-ray Computed Tomographic Data Sets
Published on: March 22, 2013
Trueness of cone-beam computed tomography-derived skull models fabricated by different technology-based
Xiaotong Wang1,2, Sohaib Shujaat1,3, Eman Shaheen1
1OMFS-IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven & Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
Background:
Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a novel innovation in the field of craniomaxillofacial surgery, however, a lack of evidence exists related to the comparison of the trueness of skull models fabricated using different technology-based printers belonging to different cost segments.
Methods:
A study was performed to investigate the trueness of cone-beam computed tomography-derived skull models fabricated using different technology based on low-, medium-, and high-cost 3D printers. Following the segmentation of a patient's skull, the model was printed by: (i) a low-cost fused filament fabrication printer; (ii) a medium-cost stereolithography printer; and (iii) a high-cost material jetting printer. The fabricated models were later scanned by industrial computed tomography and superimposed onto the original reference virtual model by applying surface-based registration. A part comparison color-coded analysis was conducted for assessing the difference between the reference and scanned models. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni correction was applied for statistical analysis.
Results:
The model printed with the low-cost fused filament fabrication printer showed the highest mean absolute error ([Formula: see text]), whereas both medium-cost stereolithography-based and the high-cost material jetting models had an overall similar dimensional error of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], respectively. Overall, the models printed with medium- and high-cost printers showed a significantly ([Formula: see text]) lower error compared to the low-cost printer.
Conclusions:
Both stereolithography and material jetting based printers, belonging to the medium- and high-cost market segment, were able to replicate the skeletal anatomy with optimal trueness, which might be suitable for patient-specific treatment planning tasks in craniomaxillofacial surgery. In contrast, the low-cost fused filament fabrication printer could serve as a cost-effective alternative for anatomical education, and/or patient communication.
