ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2022
A multi-method assessment of 3D printed micromorphological osteological features.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- 3D-printed models in the courtroom: mock-jurors' perceptions and experiences of 3D-printed models of human skeletal remains.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2026Article
- Forensic applications of 3D printing - a review of literature, case studies and future implications.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2025Review
- Preparing computed tomography images for machine learning in forensic and virtual anthropology.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evaluation of 3D printed osteological materials has highlighted the difficulties associated with accurately representing fine surface details on printed bones. Moreover, there is an increasing need for reconstructions to be demonstrably accurate and reliable for use in the criminal justice system. The aim of this study was to assess the surface quality of 3D prints (n = 9) that presented with micromorphological alterations from trauma, taphonomy and pathology processes. The archaeological bones were imaged using micro-CT scanning and 3D printed with selective laser sintering (SLS) printing. A multi-method experimental approach subsequently identified: (1) the 3D printed bones to be metrically accurate to within 1.0 mm; (2) good representation of micromorphological surface features overall, albeit with some loss of intricate details, depths, and fine textures that can be important for visual processing; (3) five of the nine 3D printed bones were quantitatively scored as accurate using the visual comparison method; and, (4) low mesh comparison distances (± 0.2 mm) between the original models and the digitised 3D print models. The findings offer empirical data that can be used to underpin 3D printed reconstructions of exhibits for use in courts of law. In addition, an adaptable pathway was presented that can be used to assess 3D print accuracy in future reconstructions.
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.