Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33670038›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Quality Control in 3D Printing: Accuracy Analysis of 3D-Printed Models of Patient-Specific Anatomy.

Bernhard Dorweiler, Pia Elisabeth Baqué, Rayan Chaban, Ahmed Ghazy, Oroa Salem

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Validation of three-dimensional printed models of intracranial aneurysms.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bernhard DorweilerDepartment of Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center, Cologne 50937, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8262-8381
Pia Elisabeth BaquéDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center, Johannes-Gutenberg University, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Rayan ChabanDepartment of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center, Johannes-Gutenberg University, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Ahmed GhazyDepartment of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center, Johannes-Gutenberg University, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Oroa SalemDepartment of Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center, Cologne 50937, Germany.
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As comparative data on the precision of 3D-printed anatomical models are sparse, the aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 3D-printed models of vascular anatomy generated by two commonly used printing technologies. Thirty-five 3D models of large (aortic, wall thickness of 2 mm, n = 30) and small (coronary, wall thickness of 1.25 mm, n = 5) vessels printed with fused deposition modeling (FDM) (rigid, n = 20) and PolyJet (flexible, n = 15) technology were subjected to high-resolution CT scans. From the resulting DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) dataset, an STL file was generated and wall thickness as well as surface congruency were compared with the original STL file using dedicated 3D engineering software. The mean wall thickness for the large-scale aortic models was 2.11 µm (+5%), and 1.26 µm (+0.8%) for the coronary models, resulting in an overall mean wall thickness of +5% for all 35 3D models when compared to the original STL file. The mean surface deviation was found to be +120 µm for all models, with +100 µm for the aortic and +180 µm for the coronary 3D models, respectively. Both printing technologies were found to conform with the currently set standards of accuracy (<1 mm), demonstrating that accurate 3D models of large and small vessel anatomy can be generated by both FDM and PolyJet printing technology using rigid and flexible polymers.

Indexed as

3D engineering3D printingaccuracyanatomical modelaortacoronaryFDM printingPolyJet printing

Identifiers

PMID33670038
PMCPMC7926654
OpenAlexW3132208776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.