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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Abbreviations

AM:

Additive manufacturing

FDM:

Fused deposition modeling

SLA:

Stereolithography

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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

    Article  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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Silvestro.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 1 Machine details. Details of each printing style used in this study
Table 2 Method-application chart. This chart summarizes the potential application of each printing style and its application in the production of phantoms
Table 3 Hounsfield comparison chart. This chart compares each of the printed materials to anatomical features with comparable Hounsfield values

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Silvestro, E., Betts, K.N., Francavilla, M.L. et al. Imaging Properties of Additive Manufactured (3D Printed) Materials for Potential Use for Phantom Models. J Digit Imaging 33, 456–464 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-019-00257-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • 3D printing
  • Additive manufacturing
  • Phantoms
  • Simulation