Dimensional error in selective laser sintering and 3D-printing of models for craniomaxillary anatomy reconstruction

• Published in: Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery Vol. 36; no. 8; pp. 443 - 449
• Main Authors: Silva, Daniela Nascimento, MSc, PhD, Gerhardt de Oliveira, Marília, PhD, Meurer, Eduardo, PhD, Meurer, Maria Inês, PhD, Lopes da Silva, Jorge Vicente, MSc, Santa-Bárbara, Ailton, MSc
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Scotland Elsevier Ltd 01.12.2008
• Subjects: Anatomy, Cross-Sectional; Cephalometry - instrumentation; craniofacial; Dentistry; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods; Lasers; Models, Anatomic; precision; Prosthesis Design - methods; rapid prototyping; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - instrumentation; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - methods; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Skull - anatomy & histology; Surgery; Surgery, Oral - instrumentation; Surgery, Oral - methods; Tomography, Spiral Computed; rapid prototyping; craniofacial; precision
• ISSN: 1010-5182; 1878-4119
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2008.04.003

Summary Background Selective laser sintering (SLS) and three-dimensional printing (3DP™) are rapid prototyping (RP) techniques to fabricate prototypes from biomedical images. To be used in maxillofacial surgery, these models must accurately reproduce the craniofacial skeleton. Purpose To analyze the capacity of SLS and 3DP™ models to reproduce craniomaxillary anatomy and their dimensional error. Material Dry skull, helical computed-tomography images, SLS and 3DP™ prototypes, and electronic calliper. Methods Tomographic images of a dry skull were manipulated with the InVesalius biomedical software. Prototypes were fabricated using SLS and 3DP™ techniques. Ten linear measurements were made on the models and compared with corresponding dry skull measurements (criterion standard) carried out with an electronic calliper. Results We observed a dimensional error of 2.10 and 2.67% for SLS and 3DP™ models, respectively. The models satisfactorily reproduced anatomic details, except for thin bones, small foramina and acute bone projections. The SLS prototypes showed greater dimensional precision and reproduced craniomaxillary anatomy more accurately than the 3DP™ models. Conclusion Both SLS and 3DP™ models provided acceptable precision and may be useful aids in most maxillofacial surgeries.