Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Accuracy of maxillofacial prototypes fabricated by different 3-dimensional printing technologies using multi-slice and cone-beam computed tomography

  • Yousefi, Faezeh (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Shokri, Abbas (Dental Implant Research Center, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Farhadian, Maryam (Department of Biostatistics, Dental Implants Research Center, School of Public Health and Research Center for Health Sciences, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Vafaei, Fariborz (Department of Prosthodontics, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Forutan, Fereshte (General Dentist, Brilliant Clinic)
  • Received : 2020.07.03
  • Accepted : 2020.11.06
  • Published : 2021.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of 3-dimensional(3D) printed models derived from multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems with different fields of view (FOVs). Materials and Methods: Five human dry mandibles were used to assess the accuracy of reconstructions of anatomical landmarks, bone defects, and intra-socket dimensions by 3D printers. The measurements were made on dry mandibles using a digital caliper (gold standard). The mandibles then underwent MDCT imaging. In addition, CBCT images were obtained using Cranex 3D and NewTom 3G scanners with 2 different FOVs. The images were transferred to two 3D printers, and the digital light processing (DLP) and fused deposition modeling (FDM) techniques were used to fabricate the 3D models, respectively. The same measurements were also made on the fabricated prototypes. The values measured on the 3D models were compared with the actual values, and the differences were analyzed using the paired t-test. Results: The landmarks measured on prototypes fabricated using the FDM and DLP techniques based on all 4 imaging systems showed differences from the gold standard. No significant differences were noted between the FDM and DLP techniques. Conclusion: The 3D printers were reliable systems for maxillofacial reconstruction. In this study, scanners with smaller voxels had the highest precision, and the DLP printer showed higher accuracy in reconstructing the maxillofacial landmarks. It seemed that 3D reconstructions of the anterior region were overestimated, while the reconstructions of intra-socket dimensions and implant holes were slightly underestimated.

Keywords

References

  1. Primo BT, Presotto AC, de Oliveira HW, Gassen HT, Miguens SA Jr, Silva AN Jr, et al. Accuracy assessment of prototypes produced using multi-slice and cone-beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 41: 1291-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2012.04.013
  2. Silva DN, Gerhardt de Oliveira M, Meurer E, Meurer MI, Lopes da Silva JV, Santa-Barbara A. Dimensional error in selective laser sintering and 3D-printing of models for craniomaxillary anatomy reconstruction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2008; 36: 443-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2008.04.003
  3. Adolphs N, Liu W, Keeve E, Hoffmeister B. RapidSplint: virtual splint generation for orthognathic surgery -results of a pilot series. Comput Aided Surg 2014; 19: 20-8. https://doi.org/10.3109/10929088.2014.887778
  4. Metzger MC, Hohlweg-Majert B, Schwarz U, Teschner M, Hammer B, Schmelzeisen R. Manufacturing splints for orthognathic surgery using a three-dimensional printer. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105: e1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.01.007
  5. Anssari Moin D, Derksen W, Verweij JP, van Merkesteyn R, Wismeijer D. A novel approach for computer-assisted template-guided autotransplantation of teeth with custom 3D designed/printed surgical tooling. An ex vivo proof of concept. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 74: 895-902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.01.033
  6. Maschio F, Pandya M, Olszewski R. Experimental validation of plastic mandible models produced by a "low-cost" 3-dimensional fused deposition modeling printer. Med Sci Monit 2016; 22: 943-57. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.895656
  7. Tsiklakis K, Syriopoulos K, Stamatakis HC. Radiographic examination of the temporomandibular joint using cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 196-201. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/27403192
  8. Hodez C, Griffaton-Taillandier C, Bensimon I. Cone-beam imaging: applications in ENT. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2011; 128: 65-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2010.10.008
  9. Miresmaeili A, Farhadian N, Mollabashi V, Yousefi F. Webbased evaluation of experts' opinions on impacted maxillary canines forced eruption using CBCT. Dental Press J Orthod 2015; 20: 90-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/2176-9451.20.2.090-099.oar
  10. Zhang HR, Yin LF, Liu YL, Yan LY, Wang N, Liu G, et al. Fabrication and accuracy research on 3D printing dental model based on cone beam computed tomography digital modeling. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2018; 36: 156-61.
  11. Van Dessel J, Nicolielo LF, Huang Y, Coudyzer W, Salmon B, Lambrichts I, et al. Accuracy and reliability of different cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices for structural analysis of alveolar bone in comparison with multislice CT and micro-CT. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017; 10: 95-105.
  12. Mischkowski RA, Pulsfort R, Ritter L, Neugebauer J, Brochhagen HG, Keeve E, et al. Geometric accuracy of a newly developed cone-beam device for maxillofacial imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 104: 551-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.02.021
  13. Metlerski M, Grocholewicz K, Jaron A, Lipski M, Trybek G. Comparison of presurgical dental models manufactured with two different three-dimensional printing techniques. J Healthc Eng 2020; 2020: 8893338.
  14. Kim SY, Shin YS, Jung HD, Hwang CJ, Baik HS, Cha JY. Precision and trueness of dental models manufactured with different 3-dimensional printing techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018; 153: 144-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.05.025
  15. Salemi F, Shokri A, Maleki FH, Farhadian M, Dashti G, Ostovarrad F, et al. Effect of field of view on detection of condyle bone defects using cone beam computed tomography. J Craniofac Surg 2016; 27: 644-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000002592
  16. Shweel M, Amer MI, El-shamanhory AF. A comparative study of cone-beam CT and multidetector CT in the preoperative assessment of odontogenic cysts and tumors. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2013; 44: 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrnm.2012.12.002
  17. Bastawrous S, Wake N, Levin D, Ripley B. Principles of three-dimensional printing and clinical applications within the abdomen and pelvis. Abdom Radiol 2018; 43: 2809-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1554-8
  18. Nestler N, Wesemann C, Spies BC, Beuer F, Bumann A. Dimensional accuracy of extrusion- and photopolymerization-based 3D printers: in vitro study comparing printed casts. J Prosthet Dent 2021; 125: 103-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.011
  19. Drummer D, Cifuentes-Cuellar S, Rietzel D. Suitability of PLA/TCP for fused deposition modeling. Rapid Prototyp J 2012; 18: 500-7. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552541211272045
  20. Asaumi J, Kawai N, Honda Y, Shigehara H, Wakasa T, Kishi K. Comparison of three-dimensional computed tomography with rapid prototype models in the management of coronoid hyperplasia. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 330-5. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600646
  21. Naitoh M, Nakahara K, Suenaga Y, Gotoh K, Kondo S, Ariji E. Comparison between cone-beam and multislice computed tomography depicting mandibular neurovascular canal structures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 109: e25-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.08.027

Cited by

  1. Assessment of the accuracy of 3D printed teeth by various 3D printers in forensic odontology vol.328, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.111044