Three dimensional comparative measurement of polyurethane milled skull models based on CT and MRI data sets

Reinbacher, Knut; Wallner, Jürgen; Kärcher, Hans; Pau, Mauro; Quehenberger, Franz; Feichtinger, Matthias

doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2012.02.019

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On MR imaging for GKSRS, the scanning sequence is not limited to 3D-SPGR. Similar studies using other scanning sequences have recently been published [13–17]. Third, Jursinic et al .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Geometric accuracy of 3D coordinates of the Leksell stereotactic skull frame in 1.5 Tesla- and 3.0 Tesla-magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison of three different fixation screw materials

Nakazawa

Mori

Komori

et al. 2014

Journal of Radiation Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assessed the geometric distortion of 1.5-Tesla (T) and 3.0-T magnetic resonance (MR) images with the Leksell skull frame system using three types of cranial quick fixation screws (QFSs) of different materials—aluminum, aluminum with tungsten tip, and titanium—for skull frame fixation. Two kinds of acrylic phantoms were placed on a Leksell skull frame using the three types of screws, and were scanned with computed tomography (CT), 1.5-T MR imaging and 3.0-T MR imaging. The 3D coordinates for both strengths of MR imaging were compared with those for CT. The deviations of the measured coordinates at selected points (x = 50, 100 and 150; y = 50, 100 and 150) were indicated on different axial planes (z = 50, 75, 100, 125 and 150). The errors of coordinates with QFSs of aluminum, tungsten-tipped aluminum, and titanium were <1.0, 1.0 and 2.0 mm in the entire treatable area, respectively, with 1.5 T. In the 3.0-T field, the errors with aluminum QFSs were <1.0 mm only around the center, while the errors with tungsten-tipped aluminum and titanium were >2.0 mm in most positions. The geometric accuracy of the Leksell skull frame system with 1.5-T MR imaging was high and valid for clinical use. However, the geometric errors with 3.0-T MR imaging were larger than those of 1.5-T MR imaging and were acceptable only with aluminum QFSs, and then only around the central region.

show abstract

“…On MR imaging for GKSRS, the scanning sequence is not limited to 3D-SPGR. Similar studies using other scanning sequences have recently been published [13–17]. Third, Jursinic et al .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Geometric accuracy of 3D coordinates of the Leksell stereotactic skull frame in 1.5 Tesla- and 3.0 Tesla-magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison of three different fixation screw materials

Nakazawa

Mori

Komori

et al. 2014

Journal of Radiation Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Different series can be overlaid as long as there are accurate, discrete, and reliable reference points between the series. For many applications, MR yields 3D models as accurate as CT (19). Segmented images from CT and MR imaging can also be coregistered if there are multiple points of unique anatomy that can be overlaid with confidence (eg, aortic bifurcation, vessel origin, vertebral body endplates).…”

Section: Teaching Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional Physical Modeling: Applications and Experience at Mayo Clinic

Matsumoto¹,

Morris²,

Foley³

et al. 2015

RadioGraphics

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiologists will be at the center of the rapid technologic expansion of three-dimensional (3D) printing of medical models, as accurate models depend on well-planned, high-quality imaging studies. This article outlines the available technology and the processes necessary to create 3D models from the radiologist's perspective. We review the published medical literature regarding the use of 3D models in various surgical practices and share our experience in creating a hospital-based three-dimensional printing laboratory to aid in the planning of complex surgeries.

show abstract

“…Although there is a difference value between measurement in the 3D model and CT scan data on symphysis of the mandible, this result accords with previous research by Reinbacher et al which compared the 3D model and CT scan/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with regard to maxillofacial bone distance. In this research, there are differences regarding measurement [2,17].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…suggested using the Coordinative Surveying Procedure (CSP) which is commonly used in the 3D industry because the accuracy of it is up to 1/1000 mm and can measure linear or non-linear surfaces. Meanwhile, in this research, a digital caliper is used for measurement, which only has an accuracy of 1/100 mm; it has already been used in research by Olszewski et al [9,2].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three-Dimensional Model Printing in Oral and Maxillofacial Reconstructive Surgery: Comparison of Three-Dimensional Models and Multislice Computed Tomography Scans

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The objective of this study is to compare fabrication of commonly used three-dimensional (3D) models with original multislice computed tomography (MSCT) scan data for accuracy and precision in reconstruction surgery.Methods: MSCT data from 10 samples are processed and manufactured to be 3D models. Both groups are then measured and analyzed for the purpose of comparison. Results:The average mandibular measurement difference between 3D models and MSCT scans is 0.26 mm more <2%. The final results of the comparison reveal high accuracy in 3D models compared to MSCT scan data. Conclusion:The 3D model could be considered as surgical guidance for maxillofacial reconstruction surgery since it yields highly accurate results.

show abstract

Three dimensional comparative measurement of polyurethane milled skull models based on CT and MRI data sets

Cited by 9 publications

References 33 publications

Geometric accuracy of 3D coordinates of the Leksell stereotactic skull frame in 1.5 Tesla- and 3.0 Tesla-magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison of three different fixation screw materials

Geometric accuracy of 3D coordinates of the Leksell stereotactic skull frame in 1.5 Tesla- and 3.0 Tesla-magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison of three different fixation screw materials

Three-dimensional Physical Modeling: Applications and Experience at Mayo Clinic

Three-Dimensional Model Printing in Oral and Maxillofacial Reconstructive Surgery: Comparison of Three-Dimensional Models and Multislice Computed Tomography Scans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About