Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB) · 2025
Characterization and evaluation methods of fused deposition modeling and stereolithography additive manufacturing for clinical linear accelerator photon and electron radiotherapy applications.
СтатьяОценочное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bustillo John Paul O, Mata Jacob L, Posadas Julia Rebecca D, Inocencio Elrick T, Rosenfeld Anatoly B, Lerch Michael L F
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To propose comprehensive characterization methods of additive manufacturing (AM) materials for MV photon and MeV electron radiotherapy.
METHODOLOGY: This study investigated 15 AM materials using CT machines. Geometrical accuracy, tissue-equivalence, uniformity, and fabrication parameters were considered. Selected soft tissue equivalent filaments were used to fabricate slab phantoms and compared with water equivalent RW3 phantom by delivering planar 6 & 10 MV photons and 6, 9, 12, 15, & 18 MeV electrons. Finally, a 3D printed CT-Electron Density characterization phantom was fabricated.
RESULTS: Materials used to print test objects can simulate tissues from adipose (relative electron density, ρe=0.72) up to near inner bone-equivalent (ρe=1.08). Lower densities such as breast and lung can be simulated using infills from 90 % down to 30 %, respectively. The gyroid infill pattern shows the lowest CT number variation and is recommended for low infill percentage printing. CT number uniformity can be observed from 40 % up to 100 % infill, while printing orientation does not significantly affect the CT number. The measured doses using the 3D printed phantoms show to have good agreement with TPS calculated dose for photon (< 1 % difference) and electron (< 5 % difference). Varying the printed slab thicknesses shows very similar response (< 3 % difference) compared with RW3 slabs except for 6 MeV electrons. Lastly, the fabricated CT-ED phantom generally matches the lung- up to the soft tissue- equivalence.
CONCLUSION: The proposed methods give the outline for characterization of AM materials as tissue-equivalent substitute. Printing parameters affect the radiological quality of 3D-printed object.
METHODOLOGY: This study investigated 15 AM materials using CT machines. Geometrical accuracy, tissue-equivalence, uniformity, and fabrication parameters were considered. Selected soft tissue equivalent filaments were used to fabricate slab phantoms and compared with water equivalent RW3 phantom by delivering planar 6 & 10 MV photons and 6, 9, 12, 15, & 18 MeV electrons. Finally, a 3D printed CT-Electron Density characterization phantom was fabricated.
RESULTS: Materials used to print test objects can simulate tissues from adipose (relative electron density, ρe=0.72) up to near inner bone-equivalent (ρe=1.08). Lower densities such as breast and lung can be simulated using infills from 90 % down to 30 %, respectively. The gyroid infill pattern shows the lowest CT number variation and is recommended for low infill percentage printing. CT number uniformity can be observed from 40 % up to 100 % infill, while printing orientation does not significantly affect the CT number. The measured doses using the 3D printed phantoms show to have good agreement with TPS calculated dose for photon (< 1 % difference) and electron (< 5 % difference). Varying the printed slab thicknesses shows very similar response (< 3 % difference) compared with RW3 slabs except for 6 MeV electrons. Lastly, the fabricated CT-ED phantom generally matches the lung- up to the soft tissue- equivalence.
CONCLUSION: The proposed methods give the outline for characterization of AM materials as tissue-equivalent substitute. Printing parameters affect the radiological quality of 3D-printed object.