Qualitative Assessment of Four Types of Three-Dimensional Printed Anatomical Tibial Bone Models Compared to Commercially Available Models

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to compare technical and physical features of four three-dimensional printed bone models used for teaching purposes to commercial models.

Study Design A canine tibia was imaged using computed tomography and used for model development. Tibial models were printed using Resin, polylactide acid (PLA), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and high-impact polystyrene (HIPS). They were compared with two commercial models (SAWBONES 2117 and 2108). Models were drilled in three locations and then cut transversely. Subjective quality of models, time and cost of production were compared.

Results Print time was approximately 3 hours for Resin and 4 hours for each of the PLA, ABS and HIPS models. Unlike the Resin and SAWBONES, the PLA, HIPS and ABS had higher heat generation during both drilling and cutting with mild construct deformation at cut surfaces in ABS and PLA models. Characteristics of real bone during drilling and cutting were best simulated in decreasing order by Resin, PLA, ABS and HIPS followed by SAWBONES 2117 and 2108 models. Material costs were $14.6 (Resin), $0.48 (PLA/ABS), $1.52 (HIPS), $23.50 and $17.50 for SAWBONES 2117 and 2108 per model, respectively. Resin performed best and had the closest subjective tactile properties to real bone.

Conclusion The three-dimensional printed tibial bone models provide a cost-effective alternative to commercially available bone models in veterinary medicine as teaching models.

Keywords

bone models - three-dimensional printing - dog

Authors' Contributions

Sarah Malek and Davin H. Huston contributed to conception of study and study design. All authors contributed to model production, model testing and interpretation of the data. Sarah Malek contributed to the funding of the project. All authors contributed to the collection and assembly of data, whereas Sarah Malek and Davin H. Huston contributed to administrative support. All authors contributed to the preparation and approval of the manuscript.

• References

• 1 Sunol A, Aige V, Morales C, Lopez-Beltran M, Feliu-Pascual AL, Puig J. Use of three-dimensional printing models for veterinary medical education: impact on learning how to identify canine vertebral fractures. J Vet Med Educ 2018; 46 (04) 1-10
• 2 Wu AM, Wang K, Wang JS. , et al. The addition of 3D printed models to enhance the teaching and learning of bone spatial anatomy and fractures for undergraduate students: a randomized controlled study. Ann Transl Med 2018; 6 (20) 403
• 3 Smith CF, Tollemache N, Covill D, Johnston M. Take away body parts! An investigation into the use of 3D-printed anatomical models in undergraduate anatomy education. Anat Sci Educ 2018; 11 (01) 44-53
• 4 Tack P, Victor J, Gemmel P, Annemans L. 3D-printing techniques in a medical setting: a systematic literature review. Biomed Eng Online 2016; 15 (01) 115
• 5 Martelli N, Serrano C, van den Brink H. , et al. Advantages and disadvantages of 3-dimensional printing in surgery: a systematic review. Surgery 2016; 159 (06) 1485-1500
• 6 Ngo TD, Kashani A, Imbalzano G, Nguyen KTQ, Hui D. Additive manufacturing (3D printing): a review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos, Part B Eng 2018; 143: 172-196
• 7 Varotsis AB. Introduction to FDM 3D Printing [Electronic Book]. Available at: https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/introduction-fdm-3d-printing : 3D HUBS; 2019
• 8 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 (03) 167-173
• 9 Varotsis AB. Introduction to Material Jetting 3D Printing. Available at: https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/introduction-material-jetting-3d-printing : 3D HUBS; 2019
• 10 Salmi M, Ituarte IF, Tuomi J, Makitie A. Workflow for 3D printing of medical models – phases, timeline and costs. Le Courrier de la Transplantation 2018; 18 (1–2): 41-47
• 11 Winer JN, Verstraete FJM, Cissell DD, Lucero S, Athanasiou KA, Arzi B. The application of 3-dimensional printing for preoperative planning in oral and maxillofacial surgery in dogs and cats. Vet Surg 2017; 46 (07) 942-951
• 12 Freiser ME, Ghodadra A, Hart L, Griffith C, Jabbour N. Safety of drilling 3-dimensional-printed temporal bones. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018; 144 (09) 797-801
• 13 Cone JA, Martin TM, Marcellin-Little DJ, Harrysson OLA, Griffith EH. Accuracy and repeatability of long-bone replicas of small animals fabricated by use of low-end and high-end commercial three-dimensional printers. Am J Vet Res 2017; 78 (08) 900-905
• 14 Kikinis R, Pieper SD, Vosburgh KG. 3D Slicer: a platform for subject-specific image analysis, visualization, and clinical support. In: Jolesz FA. , ed. Intraoperative Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2014: 277-289
• 15 INC. ACP. ABS Physical Properties. Available at: https://www.acplasticsinc.com/techsheets/ABS_PP.pdf
• 16 Neff CTM, Crane NB. , eds. Impact of vapor polishing on surface roughness and mechanical properties for 3D printed ABS. Presented at: 27th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium - An Additive Manufacturing Conference; AT&T executive education and conference center, University of Texas, Austin, Texas: Verlag nicht ermittelbar; 2016
• 17 Stratasys. Vero Available at: https://www.stratasys.com/materials/search/vero . Available at: https://www.stratasys.com/-/media/files/material-spec-sheets/vero-material-data-sheet.pdf
• 18 Farah S, Anderson DG, Langer R. Physical and mechanical properties of PLA, and their functions in widespread applications - a comprehensive review. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2016; 107: 367-392
• 19 Alvarez KL, Lagos RF, Aizpun M. Investigating the influence of infill percentage on the mechanical properties of fused deposition modelled ABS parts. Ing Invest 2016; 36 (03) 110-116
• 20 Durgun I, Ertan R. Experimental investigation of FDM process for improvement of mechanical properties and production cost. Rapid Prototyping J 2014; 20 (03) 228-235
• 21 Gajdos I, Slota J. Influence of printing conditions on structure in FDM prototypes. Teh Vjesn 2013; 20 (02) 231-236
• 22 Bir C, Andrecovich C, DeMaio M, Dougherty PJ. Evaluation of bone surrogates for indirect and direct ballistic fractures. Forensic Sci Int 2016; 261: 1-7
• 23 Salmi M, Ituarte IF, Chekurov S, Huotilainen E. . Effect of build orientation in 3D printing production for material extrusion, material jetting, binder jetting, sheet object lamination, vat photopolymerisation, and powder bed fusion. Int J Collaborative Enterprise 2016; 5 (3/4): 218-231
• 24 Karaca F, Aksakal B. Effects of various drilling parameters on bone during implantology: an in vitro experimental study. Acta Bioeng Biomech 2013; 15 (04) 25-32
• 25 Bachelez A, Martinez SA. Heat generation by two different saw blades used for tibial plateau leveling osteotomies. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2012; 48 (02) 83-88