METHODS: The Z Printer 450 (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC) reprinted 10 sets of models for each category of crowding (mild, moderate, and severe) scanned using a structured-light scanner (Maestro 3D, AGE Solutions, Pisa, Italy). Stone and RP models were measured using digital calipers for tooth sizes in the mesiodistal, buccolingual, and crown height planes and for arch dimension measurements. Bland-Altman and paired t test analyses were used to assess agreement and accuracy. Clinical significance was set at ±0.50 mm.
RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis showed the mean bias of measurements between the models to be within ±0.15 mm (SD, ±0.40 mm), but the 95% limits of agreement exceeded the cutoff point of ±0.50 mm (lower range, -0.81 to -0.41 mm; upper range, 0.34 to 0.76 mm). Paired t tests showed statistically significant differences for all planes in all categories of crowding except for crown height in the moderate crowding group and arch dimensions in the mild and moderate crowding groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The rapid prototyping models were not clinically comparable with conventional stone models regardless of the degree of crowding.
METHODS: Cardiac insert volumes were segmented from CT image datasets, derived from an anthropomorphic chest phantom of Lungman N-01 (Kyoto Kagaku, Japan). These segmented datasets were converted to a virtual 3D-isosurface of heart-shaped shell, while two other removable inserts were included using computer-aided design (CAD) software program. This newly designed cardiac insert phantom was later printed by using a fused deposition modelling (FDM) process via a Creatbot DM Plus 3D printer. Then, several selected filling materials, such as contrast media, oil, water and jelly, were loaded into designated spaces in the 3D-printed phantom. The 3D-printed cardiac insert phantom was positioned within the anthropomorphic chest phantom and 30 repeated CT acquisitions performed using a multi-detector scanner at 120-kVp tube potential. Attenuation (Hounsfield Unit, HU) values were measured and compared to the image datasets of real-patient and Catphan® 500 phantom.
RESULTS: The output of the 3D-printed cardiac insert phantom was a solid acrylic plastic material, which was strong, light in weight and cost-effective. HU values of the filling materials were comparable to the image datasets of real-patient and Catphan® 500 phantom.
CONCLUSIONS: A novel and cost-effective cardiac insert phantom for anthropomorphic chest phantom was developed using volumetric CT image datasets with a 3D printer. Hence, this suggested the printing methodology could be applied to generate other phantoms for CT imaging studies.
METHODS: 15wt% of zirconia (ZrO2) as well as 30, 35, and 40wt% of beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) were compounded with PA 12, followed by the fabrication of filament feedstocks using a single screw extruder. The fabricated filament feedstocks were used to print the impact specimens. The melt flow rate, tensile properties of fabricated filament feedstocks, and 3D printed impact properties of the specimens were assessed using melt flow indexer, universal testing machine, and Izod pendulum tester, respectively. The microstructure of selected filament feedstocks and broken impact specimens were analysed using a field emission scanning electron microscope and universal testing machine. Human periodontal ligament fibroblast cells (HPdLF) were used to evaluate the cytotoxicity of the materials by (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazoliumbromid) (MTT) assay.
RESULTS: Hybrid ceramics filled PA 12 indicated sufficient flowability for FDM 3D printing. The tensile strength of hybrid ceramics filled PA 12 filament feedstocks slightly reduced as compared to unfilled PA 12. However, the tensile modulus and impact strength of hybrid ceramics filled PA 12 increased by 8%-31% and 98%-181%, respectively. A significant increase was also detected in the cell viability of the developed composites at concentrations of 12.5, 25, 50 and 100mg/ml.
SIGNIFICANCE: The newly developed hybrid ceramics filled PA 12 filament feedstock with improved properties is suitable for an FDM-based 3D printer, which enables the creation of patient-specific craniofacial implant at a lower cost to serve low-income patients.
METHODS: The PubMed database and Google scholar were browsed by keywords of 3-D printing, drug delivery, and personalised medicine. The data about techniques employed in the manufacturing of 3-D printed medicines and the application of 3-D printing technology in the fabrication of individualised medicine were collected, analysed and discussed.
RESULTS: Numerous techniques can fabricate 3-D printed medicines however, printing-based inkjet, nozzle-based deposition and laser-based writing systems are the most popular 3-D printing methods which have been employed successfully in the development of tablets, polypills, implants, solutions, nanoparticles, targeted and topical dug delivery. In addition, the approval of Spritam® containing levetiracetam by FDA as the primary 3-D printed drug product has boosted its importance. However, some drawbacks such as suitability of manufacturing techniques and the available excipients for 3-D printing need to be addressed to ensure simple, feasible, reliable and reproducible 3-D printed fabrication.
CONCLUSION: 3-D printing is a revolutionary in pharmaceutical technology to cater the present and future needs of individualised medicines. Nonetheless, more investigations are required on its manufacturing aspects in terms cost effectiveness, reproducibility and bio-equivalence.
STUDY DESIGN: The research was designed as a crossover, randomized control trial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects comprised patients receiving fixed appliances at a teaching institution and indicated for VFRs. Post-treatment stone models were scanned with a structured-light scanner. A fused deposition modelling machine was used to construct acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS)-based replicas from the 3D scanned images. VFRs were fabricated on the original stone and printed models. Analysis comprised independent t-tests and repeated measures analysis of variance.
RANDOMIZATION: Subjects were allocated to two groups using Latin squares methods and simple randomization. A week after debond, subjects received either VFR-CV first (group A) or VFR-3D first (group B) for 3 months, then the interventions were crossed over for another 3 months.
BLINDING: In this single-blinded study, subjects were assigned a blinding code for data entry; data were analysed by a third party.
OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) based on Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14). Secondary outcome was post-treatment stability measured using Little's Irregularity Index (LII).
RESULTS: A total of 30 subjects (15 in each group) were recruited but 3 dropped out. Analysis included 13 subjects from group A and 14 subjects from group B. Group A showed an increase in LII (P < 0.05) after wearing VFR-CV and VFR-3D, whereas group B had no significant increase in LII after wearing both VFRs. Both groups reported significant improvement in OHRQoL after the first intervention but no significant differences after the second intervention. LII changes and OHIP-14 scores at T2 and T3 between groups, and overall between the retainers were not significantly different. No harm was reported during the study.
CONCLUSION: VFRs made on ABS-based 3D printed models showed no differences in terms of patients' OHRQoL and stability compared with conventionally made retainers.
REGISTRATION: NCT02866617 (ClinicalTrials.gov).