ArticlePolymers2021
Estimating the Accuracy of Mandible Anatomical Models Manufactured Using Material Extrusion Methods.
Article in Polymers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advanced Manufacturing of PLA Surgical Templates for Orbital Floor Geometry: Optimizing Fidelity and Surface Morphology via Variable Layer Height MEX 3D Printing.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Influence of the Steam Sterilization Process on Selected Properties of Polymer Samples Produced in MEX and JMT Processes.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Quality assurance of 3D-printed patient specific anatomical models: a systematic review.3D printing in medicine · 2024Article
- 3D Printing Applications for Craniomaxillofacial Reconstruction: A Sweeping Review.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2023Review
- The Accuracy of Sex Identification Using CBCT Morphometric Measurements of the Mandible, with Different Machine-Learning Algorithms-A Retrospective Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Procedure Increasing the Accuracy of Modelling and the Manufacturing of Surgical Templates with the Use of 3D Printing Techniques, Applied in Planning the Procedures of Reconstruction of the Mandible.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of new solutions in craniofacial surgery brings the need to increase the accuracy of 3D printing models. The accuracy of the manufactured models is most often verified using optical coordinate measuring systems. However, so far, no decision has been taken regarding which type of system would allow for a reliable estimation of the geometrical accuracy of the anatomical models. Three types of optical measurement systems (Atos III Triple Scan, articulated arm (MCA-II) with a laser head (MMD × 100), and Benchtop CT160Xi) were used to verify the accuracy of 12 polymer anatomical models of the left side of the mandible. The models were manufactured using fused deposition modeling (FDM), melted and extruded modeling (MEM), and fused filament fabrication (FFF) techniques. The obtained results indicate that the Atos III Triple Scan allows for the most accurate estimation of errors in model manufacturing. Using the FDM technique obtained the best accuracy in models manufactured (0.008 ± 0.118 mm for ABS0-M30 and 0.016 ± 0.178 mm for PC-10 material). A very similar value of the standard deviation of PLA and PET material was observed (about 0.180 mm). The worst results were observed in the MEM technique (0.012 mm ± 0.308 mm). The knowledge regarding the precisely evaluated errors in manufactured models within the mandibular area will help in the controlled preparation of templates regarding the expected accuracy of surgical operations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.