ArticleHeliyon2024
Assessment of the accuracy of 3D printed medical models through reverse engineering.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of additively manufactured PLA models as cost-effective, non-inferior alternatives to composite bones for pull-out testing.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy Between Digital and Conventional Definitive Impressions of Edentulous Arches: A Clinical Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The dimensional accuracy of additively manufactured (3D printed) medical models can be affected by various parameters. Although different methods are used to evaluate the accuracy of additively manufactured models, this study focused on the investigation of the dimensional accuracy of the medical model based the combination of reverse engineering (RE) and additive manufacturing (AM) technologies. Human femur bone was constructed from CT images and manufactured, using Fortus 450mc Industrial material extrusion 3D Printer. The additive manufactured femur bone was subsequently 3D scanned using three distinct non-contact 3D scanners. MeshLab was used for mesh analysis, while VX Elements was used for post-processing of the point cloud. A combination of the VX Inspect environment and MeshLab was used to evaluate the scanning performance. The deviation of the 3D scanned 3D models from the reference mesh was determined using relative metrics and absolute measurements. The scanners reported deviations ranging from -0.375 mm to 0.388 mm, resulting in a total range of approximately 0.763 mm with average root mean square (RMS) deviation of 0.22 mm. The results indicate that the additively manufactured model, as measured by 3D scanning, has a mean deviation with an average range of approximately 0.46 mm and an average mean value of around 0.16 mm.
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.