Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35934728›Full record

Article3D printing in medicine2022

Stereolithography (STL) measurement rubric for the evaluation of craniomaxillofacial STLs.

Henra Muller, Annabel Fossey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Henra MullerDepartment of Clinical Imaging Sciences, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. henramuller@cut.ac.za.
Annabel FosseyGraduate Mastery, Randburg, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFacial deformities often demand reconstructive surgery and the placement of three-dimensional (3D) printed craniomaxillofacial prostheses. Prostheses manufacturing requires patients' computed tomography (CT) images. Poor quality images result in incorrectly sized prostheses, necessitating repeat imaging and refitting. The Centre for Rapid Prototyping and Manufacturing (CRPM) produces most facial prostheses in South Africa but does not have a prescribed optimised CT protocol. Therefore, this study was undertaken.

methodsA collection of CRPM STLs used in the design and manufacturing of craniomaxillofacial prostheses is available. The image quality of stereolithography (STL) files of CRPM CT scans was evaluated to determine what constitutes good image quality. This collection was scrutinised for inclusion in the image quality evaluation. After scrutiny, 35 STLs of individuals ≥15 years of age were selected and included metadata attached to the DICOM file. Furthermore, only STLs created without manipulation by the same designer were included in the collection. Before the qualitative evaluation of the STLs, eight different critical anatomical reference points (CARPs) were identified with the assistance of an expert team. A visual acuity rating scale of three categories was devised for each CARP, where 1 was allocated to poor visual acuity, 2 to partial, and 3 to good visual acuity. Similarly, rating scales were devised for the presence of concentric rings and the overall impression score awarded by the two designers involved in the design and manufacturing of the prostheses. This stereolithography measurement rubric (SMR) was then applied to the 35 STLs by a team of three experts, including the two designers, during a structured evaluation session. The scores were used to calculate summary and inferential statistics.

resultsScores grouped around the central rating of partial visual acuity. The three evaluators' mean total CARP scores ranged from 13.1 to 14.4 (maximum possible score 24), while the mean total CARP + ring scores ranged from 15.8 to 17.1 (maximum possible score 27). No significant differences were detected between the evaluators' scores.

conclusionThis SMR appears to be the first of its kind. This image quality assessment of STLs provides the groundwork for finer CT image quality evaluation to formulate a CT imaging protocol for the CRPM to design and manufacture accurate internal cranial prostheses.

Indexed as

3D printingCT image qualityInternal cranial prosthesisSTLSTL measurement rubric

Identifiers

PMID35934728
PMCPMC9358852

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.