Influence of CT parameters on STL model accuracy

Purpose Additive manufactured (AM) skull models are increasingly used to plan complex surgical cases and design custom implants. The accuracy of such constructs depends on the standard tessellation language (STL) model, which is commonly obtained from computed tomography (CT) data. The aims of this study were to assess the image quality and the accuracy of STL models acquired using different CT scanners and acquisition parameters. Design/methodology/approach Images of three dry human skulls were acquired using two multi-detector row computed tomography (MDCT) scanners, a dual energy computed tomography (DECT) scanner and one cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanner. Different scanning protocols were used on each scanner. All images were ranked according to their image quality and converted into STL models. The STL models were compared to gold standard models. Findings Image quality differed between the MDCT, DECT and CBCT scanners. Images acquired using low-dose MDCT protocols were preferred over images acquired using routine protocols. All CT-based STL models demonstrated non-uniform geometrical deviations of up to +0.9 mm. The largest deviations were observed in CBCT-derived STL models. Practical implications While patient-specific AM constructs can be fabricated with great accuracy using AM technologies, their design is more challenging because it is dictated by the correctness of the STL model. Inaccurate STL models can lead to ill-fitting implants that can cause complications after surgery. Originality/value This paper suggests that CT imaging technologies and their acquisition parameters affect the accuracy of medical AM constructs.

[1]  Paul Suetens,et al.  Fundamentals of Medical Imaging by Paul Suetens , 2009 .

[2]  R. Jacobs,et al.  A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT). Part II: On 3D model accuracy. , 2010, European journal of radiology.

[3]  H. Bosmans,et al.  Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[4]  Daniel Danielsson,et al.  Rapid prototyped patient specific implants for reconstruction of orbital wall defects. , 2014, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[5]  Timon Mallepree,et al.  Accuracy of medical RP models , 2009 .

[6]  H. Yoshikawa,et al.  Accuracy analysis of three‐dimensional bone surface models of the forearm constructed from multidetector computed tomography data , 2009, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[7]  Paul Suetens Fundamentals of Medical Imaging , 2002 .

[8]  M G Mack,et al.  Image Quality and Radiation Dose of Dual-Energy CT of the Head and Neck Compared with a Standard 120-kVp Acquisition , 2011, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[9]  Georg N Duda,et al.  Initial vascularization and tissue differentiation are influenced by fixation stability , 2005, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[10]  R Jacobs,et al.  Accuracy and surgical feasibility of a CBCT-based stereolithographic surgical guide aiding autotransplantation of teeth: in vitro validation. , 2010, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[11]  M. Ivanovic,et al.  Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. , 2008, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[12]  Shanon Patel,et al.  Cone beam CT in dental practice , 2009, BDJ.

[13]  J. Guarino,et al.  Rapid Prototyping Technology for Surgeries of the Pediatric Spine and Pelvis: Benefits Analysis , 2007, Journal of pediatric orthopedics.

[14]  S. Lofthag-Hansen,et al.  Cone beam computed tomography radiation dose and image quality assessments. , 2010, Swedish dental journal. Supplement.

[15]  Jayanthi Parthasarathy,et al.  3D modeling, custom implants and its future perspectives in craniofacial surgery , 2014, Annals of maxillofacial surgery.

[16]  J. Giannatsis,et al.  Additive fabrication technologies applied to medicine and health care: a review , 2009 .

[17]  M Kortesniemi,et al.  Assessment of the effective dose in supine, prone, and oblique positions in the maxillofacial region using a novel combined extremity and maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography scanner. , 2014, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology.

[18]  L. Feldkamp,et al.  Practical cone-beam algorithm , 1984 .

[19]  G. Santler,et al.  Indications and limitations of three-dimensional models in cranio-maxillofacial surgery. , 1998, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[20]  H. Bosmans,et al.  Variability of dental cone beam CT grey values for density estimations. , 2013, The British journal of radiology.

[21]  Timothy M. Barker,et al.  Stereolithographic biomodelling in cranio-maxillofacial surgery: A prospective trial , 1999 .

[22]  Julia F. Barrett,et al.  Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. , 2004, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[23]  Beat Schmutz,et al.  Quantification of the accuracy of MRI generated 3D models of long bones compared to CT generated 3D models. , 2012, Medical engineering & physics.