ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Nominal material density may not reflect TPS-relevant density for 3D-printed surgical reconstruction implants: An educational case study.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Additively manufactured (3D-printed) surgical reconstruction implants are increasingly encountered in head and neck oncology and may introduce density assignment challenges during radiotherapy treatment planning. This case report describes a clinically significant dosimetric discrepancy arising from the application of nominal bulk material density to an additively manufactured surgical reconstruction implant and to highlight workflow considerations for density assignment. A patient treated with helical tomotherapy following mandibular reconstruction with an additively manufactured titanium implant underwent kilovoltage computed tomography (kVCT) simulation. Saturation of Hounsfield units within the implant precluded reliable density estimation, necessitating a density override based on nominal bulk material properties. During treatment, megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) imaging with adaptive dose recalculation was used to evaluate the dosimetric impact of this assumption. Replanning was performed using a revised density override informed by imaging-based evaluation while maintaining institutional planning criteria. Adaptive dose recalculation demonstrated a localized calculated dose increase of approximately 7% within portions of the clinical and planning target volumes adjacent to the reconstruction implant. Replanning with a revised density override reduced unintended target dose heterogeneity while preserving target coverage. Nominal bulk material density may not accurately represent TPS-relevant radiologic density for additively manufactured surgical reconstruction implants, and this discrepancy may not be apparent on kVCT imaging. Independent evaluation of density assumptions using alternative imaging modalities can identify clinically meaningful discrepancies and support patient-protective replanning decisions.
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.