Evaluation of the effect of computed tomography scan protocols and freeform fabrication methods on bone biomodel accuracy

Kathryn L. Fitzwater Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606.

Search for other papers by Kathryn L. Fitzwater in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
Denis J. Marcellin-Little Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606.

Search for other papers by Denis J. Marcellin-Little in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DEDV
,
Ola L. A. Harrysson Edward P. Fitts Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, College of Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606.

Search for other papers by Ola L. A. Harrysson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
,
Jason A. Osborne Department of Statistics, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606.

Search for other papers by Jason A. Osborne in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
, and
E. Christine Poindexter Veterinary Teaching Hospital, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606.

Search for other papers by E. Christine Poindexter in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS

Abstract

Objective—To assess the effect of computed tomography (CT) scan protocols (radiation amounts) and fabrication methods on biomodel accuracy and variability.

Sample—Cadaveric femur of a Basset Hound.

Procedures—Retroreconstructions (n = 158) were performed of 16 original scans and were visually inspected to select 17 scans to be used for biomodel fabrication. Biomodels of the 17 scans were made in triplicate by use of 3 freeform fabrication processes (stereolithography, fused deposition modeling, and 3-D printing) for 153 models. The biomodels and original bone were measured by use of a coordinate measurement machine.

Results—Differences among fabrication methods accounted for 2% to 29% of the total observed variation in inaccuracy and differences among method-specific radiation configurations accounted for 4% to 44%. Biomodels underestimated bone length and width and femoral head diameter and overestimated cortical thickness. There was no evidence of a linear association between thresholding adjustments and biomodel accuracy. Higher measured radiation dose led to a decrease in absolute relative error for biomodel diameter and for 4 of 8 cortical thickness measurements.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The outside dimensions of biomodels have a clinically acceptable accuracy. The cortical thickness of biomodels may overestimate cortical thickness. Variability among biomodels was caused by model fabrication reproducibility and, to a lesser extent, by the radiation settings of the CT scan and differences among fabrication methods.

Abstract

Objective—To assess the effect of computed tomography (CT) scan protocols (radiation amounts) and fabrication methods on biomodel accuracy and variability.

Sample—Cadaveric femur of a Basset Hound.

Procedures—Retroreconstructions (n = 158) were performed of 16 original scans and were visually inspected to select 17 scans to be used for biomodel fabrication. Biomodels of the 17 scans were made in triplicate by use of 3 freeform fabrication processes (stereolithography, fused deposition modeling, and 3-D printing) for 153 models. The biomodels and original bone were measured by use of a coordinate measurement machine.

Results—Differences among fabrication methods accounted for 2% to 29% of the total observed variation in inaccuracy and differences among method-specific radiation configurations accounted for 4% to 44%. Biomodels underestimated bone length and width and femoral head diameter and overestimated cortical thickness. There was no evidence of a linear association between thresholding adjustments and biomodel accuracy. Higher measured radiation dose led to a decrease in absolute relative error for biomodel diameter and for 4 of 8 cortical thickness measurements.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The outside dimensions of biomodels have a clinically acceptable accuracy. The cortical thickness of biomodels may overestimate cortical thickness. Variability among biomodels was caused by model fabrication reproducibility and, to a lesser extent, by the radiation settings of the CT scan and differences among fabrication methods.

  • 1.

    Chassagne JF, Corbel S, Gimenez F, et al. Rapid prototyping and bone reconstruction. Ann Chir Plas Esthet 1999; 44: 515524.

  • 2.

    Barker TM, Earwaker WJ, Lisle DA. Accuracy of stereo-lithographic models of human anatomy. Australas Radiol 1994; 38: 106111.

  • 3.

    Chow J, Hui E, Lee PK, et al. Zygomatic implants—protocol for immediate occlusal loading: a preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 64: 804811.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Dai KR, Yan MN, Zhu ZA, et al. Computer-aided custom-made hemipelvic prosthesis used in extensive pelvic lesions. J Arthrop 2007; 22: 981986.

  • 5.

    D'Urso PS, Barker TM, Earwaker WJ, et al. Stereolithographic biomodelling in cranio-maxillofacial surgery: a prospective trial. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1999; 27: 3037.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    D'Urso PS, Williamson OD, Thompson RG. Biomodeling as an aid to spinal instrumentation. Spine 2005; 30: 28412845.

  • 7.

    El-Ghannam A, Cunningham L Jr, Pienkowski D, et al. Bone engineering of the rabbit ulna. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65: 14951502.

  • 8.

    Harrysson OLA, Cormier DR, Marcellin-Little DM, et al. Rapid prototyping for treatment of canine limb deformities. Rapid Prototyping J 2003; 9: 3742.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Hildreth BE, Marcellin-Little DJ, Roe SC, et al. In vitro evaluation of five canine tibial plateau leveling methods. Am J Vet Res 2006; 67: 693700.

  • 10.

    Hurson C, Tansey A, O'Donnchadha B, et al. Rapid prototyping in the assessment, classification and preoperative planning of acetabular fractures. Injury 2007; 38: 11581162.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Hu YJ, Hardianto A, Li SY, et al. Reconstruction of a palatomaxillary defect with vascularized iliac bone combined with a superficial inferior epigastric artery flap and zygomatic implants as anchorage. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 36: 854857.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Kacl GM, Zanetti M, Amgwerd M, et al. Rapid prototyping (stereolithography) in the management of intra-articular calcaneal fractures. Eur Radiol 1997; 7: 187191.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Lo LJ, Chen YR, Tseng CS, et al. Computer-aided reconstruction of traumatic fronto-orbital osseous defects: aesthetic considerations. Chang Gung Med J 2004; 27: 283291.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Owen BD, Christensen GE, Reinhardt JM, et al. Rapid prototype patient-specific drill template for cervical pedicle screw placement. Comput Aided Surg 2007; 12: 303308.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Paiva WS, Amorim R, Bezerra DA, et al. Application of the stereolithography technique in complex spine surgery. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2007; 65: 443445.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Mizutani J, Matsubara T, Fukuoka M, et al. Application of full-scale three-dimensional models in patients with rheumatoid cervical spine. Eur Spine J 2008; 17: 644649.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Robiony M, Salvo I, Costa F, et al. Virtual reality surgical planning for maxillofacial distraction osteogenesis: the role of reverse engineering rapid prototyping and cooperative work. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65: 11981208.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Sinn DP, Cillo JE Jr, Miles BA. Stereolithography for craniofacial surgery. J Craniofac Surg 2006; 17: 869875.

  • 19.

    Winder J, Bibb R. Medical rapid prototyping technologies: state of the art and current limitations for application in oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 63: 10061015.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Armillotta A, Bonhoeffer P, Dubini G, et al. Use of rapid prototyping models in the planning of percutaneous pulmonary valved stent implantation. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2007; 221: 407416.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Berry E, Marsden A, Dalgarno KW, et al. Flexible tubular replicas of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2002; 216: 211214.

  • 22.

    Chetty A, Steynberg T, Moolman S, et al. Hydroxyapatite-coated polyurethane for auricular cartilage replacement: an in vitro study. J Biomed Mater Res A 2008; 84: 475482.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Cooke MN, Fisher JP, Dean D, et al. Use of stereolithography to manufacture critical-sized 3D biodegradable scaffolds for bone ingrowth. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2003; 64: 6569.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Harrysson OL, Hosni YA, Nayfeh JF. Custom-designed orthopedic implants evaluated using finite element analysis of patient-specific computed tomography data: femoral-component case study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2007; 8:91.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Henry JA, O'Sullivan G, Pandit AS. Using computed tomography scans to develop an ex-vivo gastric model. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 13721377.

  • 26.

    Hiramatsu H, Tokashiki R, Yamaguchi H, et al. Three-dimensional laryngeal model for planning of laryngeal framework surgery. Acta Otolaryngol 2006; 126: 515520.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Jacobs S, Grunert R, Mohr FW, et al. 3D-imaging of cardiac structures using 3D heart models for planning in heart surgery: a preliminary study. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2008; 7: 69.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Ngan EM, Rebeyka IM, Ross DB, et al. The rapid prototyping of anatomic models in pulmonary atresia. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 132: 264269.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Peltola SM, Melchels FP, Grijpma DW, et al. A review of rapid prototyping techniques for tissue engineering purposes. Ann Med 2008; 40: 268280.

  • 30.

    Schievano S, Migliavacca F, Coats L, et al. Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation based on rapid prototyping of right ventricular outflow tract and pulmonary trunk from MR data. Radiology 2007; 242: 490497.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Sodian R, Weber S, Markert M, et al. Stereolithographic models for surgical planning in congenital heart surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2007; 83: 18541857.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Wang X, Yan Y, Zhang R. Rapid prototyping as a tool for manufacturing bioartificial livers. Trends Biotechnol 2007; 25: 505513.

  • 33.

    Watts DM, Sutcliffe CJ, Morgan RH, et al. Anatomical flow phantoms of the nonplanar carotid bifurcation, part I: computer-aided design and fabrication. Ultrasound Med Biol 2007; 33: 296302.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    Knox K, Kerber CW, Singel SA, et al. Stereolithographic vascular replicas from CT scans: choosing treatment strategies, teaching, and research from live patient scan data. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005; 26: 14281431.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    Choi JY, Choi JH, Kim NK, et al. Analysis of errors in medical rapid prototyping models. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002; 31: 2332.

  • 36.

    Chua CK, Leong KF, Lim CS. Rapid prototyping: principles and applications. Singapore: World Scientific, 2003.

  • 37.

    Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, et al. A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod 2008; 35: 191201.

  • 38.

    Klein HM, Schneider W, Alzen G, et al. Pediatric craniofacial surgery: comparison of milling and stereolithography for 3D model manufacturing. Pediatr Radiol 1992; 22: 458460.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39.

    Silva DN, Gerhardt de Oliveira M, Meurer E, et al. Dimensional error in selective laser sintering and 3D-printing of models for craniomaxillary anatomy reconstruction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2008; 36: 443449.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40.

    Ibrahim D, Broilo TL, Heitz C, et al. Dimensional error of selective laser sintering, three-dimensional printing and PolyJet models in the reproduction of mandibular anatomy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2009; 37: 167173.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41.

    Bredenhöller C, Feuerlein U. SOMATOM Sensation 10/16 application guide. 2nd ed. Munich: Siemens AG, 2005; 580.

  • 42.

    Steel RGD, Torrie JH, Dickey DA. Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.

  • 43.

    Lorinson K, Loebcke S, Skalicky M, et al. Signalment differences in bone mineral content and bone mineral density in canine appendicular bones. A cadaveric study. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21: 147151.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44.

    White D, Chelule KL, Seedhom BB. Accuracy of MRI vs CT imaging with particular reference to patient specific templates for total knee replacement surgery. Int J Med Robot 2008; 4: 224231.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45.

    Hopper KD, Pierantozzi D, Potok PS, et al. The quality of 3D reconstructions from 1.0 and 1.5 pitch helical and conventional CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1996; 20: 841847.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46.

    Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, et al. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176: 289296.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47.

    Biswas D, Bible JE, Bohan M, et al. Radiation exposure from musculoskeletal computerized tomographic scans. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 18821889.

  • 48.

    Daubs BM, Markel MD, Manley PA. Histomorphometric analysis of articular cartilage, zone of calcified cartilage, and subchondral bone plate in femoral heads from clinically normal dogs and dogs with moderate or severe osteoarthritis. Am J Vet Res 2006; 67: 17191724.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49.

    Cohen A, Laviv A, Berman P, et al. Mandibular reconstruction using stereolithographic 3-dimensional printing modeling technology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 108: 661666.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 50.

    Jacobs PF, Reid DT. Software architecture. In: Jacobs PF, ed. Rapid prototyping & manufacturing: fundamentals of stereolithography. Dearborn, Mich: Society of Manufacturing Engineers, 1992; 121.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement