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