DICOM segmentation and STL creation for 3D printing: a process and software package comparison for osseous anatomy.
3D printing
Computed-aided design
DICOM image
FDM 3D printer
Oral and maxillofacial surgery
Patient-specific
STL file
Journal
3D printing in medicine
ISSN: 2365-6271
Titre abrégé: 3D Print Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721758
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Jul 2020
31 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
02
03
2020
accepted:
10
07
2020
entrez:
2
8
2020
pubmed:
2
8
2020
medline:
2
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Extracting and three-dimensional (3D) printing an organ in a region of interest in DICOM images typically calls for segmentation as a first step in support of 3D printing. The DICOM images are not exported to STL data immediately, but segmentation masks are exported to STL models. After primary and secondary processing, including noise removal and hole correction, the STL data can be 3D printed. The quality of the 3D model is directly related to the quality of the STL data. This study focuses and reports on the DICOM to STL segmentation performance for nine software packages. Multidetector row CT scanning was performed on a dry human mandible with two 10-mm-diameter bearing balls as a phantom. The DICOM image file was then segmented and exported to an STL file using nine different commercial/open-source software packages. Once the STL models were created, the data (file) properties and the size and volume of each file were measured, and differences across the software packages were noted. Additionally, to evaluate differences between the shapes of the STL models by software package, each pair of STL models was superimposed, with the observed differences between their shapes characterized as the shape error. The data (file) size of the STL file and the number of triangles that constitute each STL model were different across all software packages, but no statistically significant differences were found across software packages. The created ball STL model expanded in the X-, Y-, and Z-axis directions, with the length in the Z-axis direction (body axis direction) being slightly longer than that in the other directions. The mean shape error between software packages of the mandibular STL model was 0.11 mm, but there was no statistically significant difference between them. Our results revealed that there are some differences between the software packages that perform the segmentation and STL creation of the DICOM image data. In particular, the features of each software package appeared in the fine and thin areas of the osseous structures. When using these software packages, it is necessary to understand the characteristics of each.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Extracting and three-dimensional (3D) printing an organ in a region of interest in DICOM images typically calls for segmentation as a first step in support of 3D printing. The DICOM images are not exported to STL data immediately, but segmentation masks are exported to STL models. After primary and secondary processing, including noise removal and hole correction, the STL data can be 3D printed. The quality of the 3D model is directly related to the quality of the STL data. This study focuses and reports on the DICOM to STL segmentation performance for nine software packages.
METHODS
METHODS
Multidetector row CT scanning was performed on a dry human mandible with two 10-mm-diameter bearing balls as a phantom. The DICOM image file was then segmented and exported to an STL file using nine different commercial/open-source software packages. Once the STL models were created, the data (file) properties and the size and volume of each file were measured, and differences across the software packages were noted. Additionally, to evaluate differences between the shapes of the STL models by software package, each pair of STL models was superimposed, with the observed differences between their shapes characterized as the shape error.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The data (file) size of the STL file and the number of triangles that constitute each STL model were different across all software packages, but no statistically significant differences were found across software packages. The created ball STL model expanded in the X-, Y-, and Z-axis directions, with the length in the Z-axis direction (body axis direction) being slightly longer than that in the other directions. The mean shape error between software packages of the mandibular STL model was 0.11 mm, but there was no statistically significant difference between them.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results revealed that there are some differences between the software packages that perform the segmentation and STL creation of the DICOM image data. In particular, the features of each software package appeared in the fine and thin areas of the osseous structures. When using these software packages, it is necessary to understand the characteristics of each.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32737703
doi: 10.1186/s41205-020-00069-2
pii: 10.1186/s41205-020-00069-2
pmc: PMC7393875
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
17Références
Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2015;56(3):177-84
pubmed: 26370578
3D Print Med. 2016;2:
pubmed: 29974058
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017 Jun;45(6):937-943
pubmed: 28465028
3D Print Med. 2017;3(1):1
pubmed: 30050978
3D Print Med. 2018 Nov 26;4(1):12
pubmed: 30649645
3D Print Med. 2017;3(1):6
pubmed: 29782614
3D Print Med. 2015;1(1):2
pubmed: 30050971
Radiographics. 2015 Nov-Dec;35(7):1965-88
pubmed: 26562233
3D Print Med. 2019 Jan 18;5(1):1
pubmed: 30659415
Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2019 Sep 7;60(3):193-199
pubmed: 31413230
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2017 Jul;4(3):034501
pubmed: 28744478
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016 Dec;44(12):1913-1916
pubmed: 27769722
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018 Nov;19(6):244-252
pubmed: 30338920
3D Print Med. 2018 Aug 13;4(1):6
pubmed: 30148203