ArticleJournal of imaging2025
Dimensional Accuracy Assessment of Medical Anatomical Models Produced by Hospital-Based Fused Deposition Modeling 3D Printer.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Imaging-based 3D-printed anatomical models for preoperative planning in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery: a single-center pilot study, cost analysis, and systematic review.La Radiologia medica · 2026Pooled it
- A Slicer-Independent Framework for Measuring G-Code Accuracy in Medical 3D Printing.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- TranslatingFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Fabrication and evaluation of a novel patient-specific 3D-printed simulation model for oral surgical training.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Redefining Digital Dentistry: Multidisciplinary Applications of 3D Printing for Personalized Dental Care.Cureus · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As 3D printing technology expands rapidly in medical disciplines, the accuracy evaluation of 3D-printed medical models is required. However, no established guidelines to assess the dimensional error of anatomical models exist. This study aims to evaluate the dimensional accuracy of medical models 3D-printed using a hospital-based Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) 3D printer. Two dissected cadaveric right hands were marked with Titanium Kirshner wires to identify landmarks on the heads and bases of all metacarpals and proximal and middle phalanges. Both hands were scanned using a Cone Beam Computed Tomography scanner. Image post-processing and segmentation were performed on 3D Slicer software. Hand models were 3D-printed using a professional hospital-based FDM 3D printer. Manual measurements of all landmarks marked on both pairs of cadaveric and 3D-printed hands were taken by two independent observers using a digital caliper. The Mean Absolute Difference (MAD) and Mean Dimensional Error (MDE) were calculated. Our results showed an acceptable level of dimensional accuracy. The overall study's MAD was 0.32 mm (±0.34), and its MDE was 1.03% (±0.83). These values fall within the recommended range of errors. A high level of dimensional accuracy of the 3D-printed anatomical models was achieved, suggesting their reliability and suitability for medical applications.
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.