Advertisement

Imaging Properties of Additive Manufactured (3D Printed) Materials for Potential Use for Phantom Models

  • Elizabeth SilvestroEmail author
  • Khalil N. Betts
  • Michael L. Francavilla
  • Savvas Andronikou
  • Raymond W. Sze
Original Paper
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Over the last few decades, there has been growing interest in the application of additive manufacturing (AM) or 3D printing for medical research and clinical application. Imaging phantoms offer clear benefits in the way of training, planning, and quality assurance, but the model’s availability per catalog tend to be suited for general testing purposes only. AM, on the contrary, offers flexibility to clinicians by enabling custom-built phantoms based on specific interests or even individual patient needs. This study aims to quantify the radiographic properties (ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography) of common additive manufacturing technologies and to discuss potential opportunities to fabricate imaging phantoms. Test phantoms were composed of samples from the three most common AM styles, namely PolyJet, fused deposition modeling (FDM), and stereolithography (SLA). Test imaging of the phantoms was performed on ultrasound, MRI, and CT and reviewed and evaluated with radiology software. The ultrasound images showed clearly defined upper and lower edges of the material but did not demonstrate distinct differences in internal echogenicity between materials. The MR scans revealed a distinct signal intensity difference between the model (17 grayscale value) and the printer support (778 grayscale value). Finally, the CT images showed a slight variation between the plastic (82 HU) and rubber (145 HU) materials. The radiographic properties of AM offer a clear opportunity to create basic two- or three-material phantoms. These would be high-accuracy and cost-effective models. Although the materials currently available are not suitable for complex multi-material applications as realistic as true human anatomy, one can easily foresee the development of new materials with broader density in the near future.

Keywords

3D printing Additive manufacturing Phantoms Simulation 

Abbreviations

AM

Additive manufacturing

FDM

Fused deposition modeling

SLA

Stereolithography

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Glenn Ferrick (MR), Patricia Mecca (CT/MR), Colleen Flowers (CT), Lamont Hill (US), Marcy L. Hutchinson (US), and team for assisting in the scan of phantoms.

Availability of Data and Materials

Data will be made available on request. The authors have the right to share the data used in this research and will provide it upon request.

Authors’ Contributions

ES and RS participated in the conception and design of the study, data analysis, and interpretation. ES fabricated models and oversaw scanning. KB and ES completed scan interpretation and data collection. All authors drafted the manuscript and approved the final version.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    George E, Liacouras P, Rybicki FJ, Mitsouras D: Measuring and establishing the accuracy and reproducibility of 3D printed medical models. RadioGraphics. 37(5):1424–1450, 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017160165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mitsouras D, Liacouras P, Imanzadeh A, Giannopoulos AA, Cai T, Kumamaru KK, George E, Wake N, Caterson EJ, Pomahac B, Ho VB, Grant GT, Rybicki FJ: Medical 3D printing for the radiologist. RadioGraphics. 35(7):1965–1988, 2015.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015140320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eley KA, Watt-Smith SR, Golding SJ: “Black bone” MRI: A novel imaging technique for 3D printing. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 46:46, 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160407 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leng S, Chen B, Vrieze T, Kuhlmann J, Yu L, Alexander A, Matsumoto J, Morris J, McCollough CH: Construction of realistic phantoms from patient images and a commercial three-dimensional printer. J Med Imaging. 3:033501, 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.3.3.033501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matsumoto JS, Morris JM, Foley TA, Williamson EE, Leng S, McGee KP, Kuhlmann JL, Nesberg LE, Vrtiska TJ: Three-dimensional physical modeling: Applications and experience at Mayo Clinic. RadioGraphics. 35(7):1989–2006, 2015.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015140260 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wood S, Krishnamurthy N, Santini T, Raval S, Farhat N, Holmes JA, Ibrahim TS: Design and fabrication of a realistic anthropomorphic heterogeneous head phantom for MR purposes. PLoS One. 12, 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183168
  7. 7.
    Kasten JA, Vetterli T, Lazeyras F, Van De Ville D: 3D-printed shepp-Logan phantom as a real-world benchmark for MRI. Magn Reson Med. 75:287–294, 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.25593 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hazelaar C, Van Eijnatten M, Dahele M, et al: Using 3D printing techniques to create an anthropomorphic thorax phantom for medical imaging purposes. 2017.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cerviño L, Soultan D, Cornell M, Yock A, Pettersson N, Song WY, Aguilera J, Advani S, Murphy J, Hoh C, James C, Paravati A, Coope R, Gill B, Moiseenko V: A novel 3D-printed phantom insert for 4D PET/CT imaging and simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy. Med Phys. 44:5467–5474, 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12495 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Javan R, Cho AL: An Assembled Prototype Multimaterial Three-Dimensional–Printed Model of the Neck for Computed Tomography– and Ultrasound-Guided Interventional Procedures.  https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000000630
  11. 11.
    Ceh J, Youd T, Mastrovich Z, Peterson C, Khan S, Sasser T, Sander I, Doney J, Turner C, Leevy W: Bismuth infusion of ABS enables additive manufacturing of complex radiological phantoms and shielding equipment. Sensors (Switzerland). 17, 2017.  https://doi.org/10.3390/s17030459
  12. 12.
    Shin J, Sandhu RS, Shih G: Imaging properties of 3D printed materials: multi-energy CT of filament polymers. J Digit Imaging. 30:572–575, 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-017-9954-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Adams F, Qiu T, Mark A, Fritz B, Kramer L, Schlager D, Wetterauer U, Miernik A, Fischer P: Soft 3D-printed phantom of the human kidney with collecting system. Ann Biomed Eng. 45:963–972, 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-016-1757-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jahnke P, Limberg FRP, Gerbl A, Ardila Pardo GL, Braun VPB, Hamm B, Scheel M: Radiopaque three-dimensional printing: A method to create realistic CT phantoms. Radiology. 282:569–575, 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016152710 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mitsouras D, Lee TC, Liacouras P, Ionita CN, Pietilla T, Maier SE, Mulkern RV: Three-dimensional printing of MRI-visible phantoms and MR image-guided therapy simulation. Magn Reson Med. 77:613–622, 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.26136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    West SJ, Mari JM, Khan A, Wan JHY, Zhu W, Koutsakos IG, Rowe M, Kamming D, Desjardins AE: Development of an ultrasound phantom for spinal injections with 3-dimensional printing. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. 39:429–433, 2014.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AAP.0000000000000136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bieniosek MF, Lee BJ, Levin CS: Technical note: Characterization of custom 3D printed multimodality imaging phantoms. Med Phys. 42:5913–5918, 2015.  https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4930803 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gatto M, Memoli G, Shaw A, Sadhoo N, Gelat P, Harris RA: Three-dimensional printing (3DP) of neonatal head phantom for ultrasound: Thermocouple embedding and simulation of bone. Med Eng Phys. 34:929–937, 2012.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.10.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Filippou V, Tsoumpas C: Recent advances on the development of phantoms using 3D printing for imaging with CT, MRI, PET, SPECT, and ultrasound. Med Phys. 45:e740–e760, 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Children’s Hospital Additive Manufacturing for Pediatrics (CHAMP Lab)Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyChildren’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Perelman School of Medicine at the University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations