ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2026
3D Printing a Clinically Available Solution From Plaster-Based Positives in Superficial Radiation Therapy.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionThis study compares two techniques for creating lead shielding masks to replace the current process for superficial/orthovoltage (SXT) facial radiotherapy: Plaster Cast Positive Mould (PCPM), Computed Tomography (CT) Scanned 3D Print (CT3DP), and Optical Scan 3D Print (OS3DP). The aim is to determine the most accurate and practical method, particularly where PCPM facilities are unavailable.
methodsFrom July 2022 to January 2023, twelve patients underwent facial SXT treatment using all three techniques. PCPM used alginate impressions reinforced with plaster. OS3DP employed the Skanect Structure Sensor for optical scanning and PLA 3D printing. CT3DP used CT imaging processed via Varian Eclipse and Adaptiiv 3D Bolus software. Accuracy was retrospectively assessed through surface mesh comparisons, manual point measurements, and blind preference testing.
resultsCT3DP showed the highest accuracy, with a mean maximum deviation of 14.8 mm and average surface difference of 2.6 mm, compared to 17.0 mm and 3.4 mm for OS3DP. Manual measurements highlighted better alignment at the eyebrows with CT3DP. In blind testing, 81.4% of participants preferred CT3DP over OS3DP. PCPM was the most time-intensive, taking 16 h to complete, vs. six hours for the 3D printing methods.
conclusionCT3DP offers greater accuracy, efficiency, and clinical preference compared to OS3DP and PCPM. Despite requiring a CT scan and associated imaging dose, its precision and reproducibility make it a strong candidate to replace PCPM in routine clinical practice.
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.