ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of Glenoid Dimensions Between 3D Computed Tomography and 3D Printing.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Decoding triple negative breast cancer bone metastasis: from 3D bioprinted models to clinical translation.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Spine alignment influences shoulder range of motion and scapular orientation: A systematic review from the FP-UCBM Shoulder Study Group.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Computer-Assisted Navigation in Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGlenoid dimensions can be measured in vivo with various imaging methods including two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging scans. Printing of three-dimensional (3D) models of the glenoid using imaging data is feasible and can be used to better understand skeletal trauma and complex skeletal deformations such as glenoid bone loss in patients with shoulder instability. The purpose of this study was to compare measurements of glenoid dimensions on 3D CT scan reconstructed models and 3D printed models of the glenoid.
methodsCT scans from 62 young, male adults acquired for non-trauma-related causes were evaluated. Following volume rendering, a stereolithography model of each scapula was constructed and a 3D model was printed. Additionally, 3D CT models of each glenoid were reconstructed using dedicated software. Measurements of the maximum glenoid height and width were performed on both the 3D printed and the 3D reconstructed models. To assess intra- and interrater reliability, measurements of 15 glenoids were repeated by two observers after three weeks. The measurements of the 3D printed and 3D reconstructed models were compared.
resultsInter- and intra-rater reliability was excellent or perfect. Analysis of height and width values demonstrated a strong correlation of 0.91 and 0.89 respectively (p<0.001) for both the 3D printed models and the 3D reconstructed models. There was a strong correlation between the height and width, but no significant difference between the glenoid width and height in both models. There was no statistical significance between height and width when measurements on the two models were examined (p=0.12 and 0.23 respectively).
conclusion3D printed glenoid models can be used to evaluate the glenoid dimensions, width, and height, as they provide similar accuracy with 3D reconstructed models as provided from CT scan data.
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.