MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026
Filament deposition modeling quality assurance testing for the medical physicist.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Heggie Benjamin T, Arreola Manuel, Leon Stephanie M, Barreto Izabella L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Filament deposition modeling (FDM) can be a practical method for producing quality control (QC) imaging resources for the clinic. However, frequent printing may degrade print quality over time.
PURPOSE: To develop a process to ensure prints for the diagnostic physicist are accurate and reproducible.
METHODS: Four FDM systems were evaluated by printing a custom, novel QC model on each printer 12 times over a period of 12 months. Several tests were performed, including print resolvability (lp/cm), XYZ dimension accuracy (mm), density (g/cm3), line width (mm), XY position accuracy (mm), clearance fits (mm), and thickness uniformity (mm). Polylactic acid (PLA) samples were printed, measured, and imaged with a dual energy CT scanner. Linear regression models were then created to monitor changes in QC density measurements as a function of x-ray and material property characteristics (i.e., Hounsfield units and electron density). Between monthly prints, heat uniformity across the build plate was also tested for each printer using a NIST-certified infrared thermometer and 3D printed grids. All physical measurements were obtained using a calibrated digital caliper and milligram scale.
RESULTS: Mean percent error (MPE) for all tests was calculated from ground truth (CAD dimensions and filament density) and baseline values (first month of QC measurements). Among printers investigated, MPE was ± 5% of ground truth for all tests except density and thickness uniformity. Baseline MPE was also observed within ± 5% except for resolvability and clearance fit tests among printers. Subtle trend increases were presented for higher density QC prints based on DECT linear regression models. Reduced chi-squared values indicate uniform and reproducible heat bed temperature measurements.
CONCLUSIONS: This work offers an innovative approach toward evaluating and monitoring FDM system performance. Future work should track performance over a longer time period and across a wider variety of printers.
PURPOSE: To develop a process to ensure prints for the diagnostic physicist are accurate and reproducible.
METHODS: Four FDM systems were evaluated by printing a custom, novel QC model on each printer 12 times over a period of 12 months. Several tests were performed, including print resolvability (lp/cm), XYZ dimension accuracy (mm), density (g/cm3), line width (mm), XY position accuracy (mm), clearance fits (mm), and thickness uniformity (mm). Polylactic acid (PLA) samples were printed, measured, and imaged with a dual energy CT scanner. Linear regression models were then created to monitor changes in QC density measurements as a function of x-ray and material property characteristics (i.e., Hounsfield units and electron density). Between monthly prints, heat uniformity across the build plate was also tested for each printer using a NIST-certified infrared thermometer and 3D printed grids. All physical measurements were obtained using a calibrated digital caliper and milligram scale.
RESULTS: Mean percent error (MPE) for all tests was calculated from ground truth (CAD dimensions and filament density) and baseline values (first month of QC measurements). Among printers investigated, MPE was ± 5% of ground truth for all tests except density and thickness uniformity. Baseline MPE was also observed within ± 5% except for resolvability and clearance fit tests among printers. Subtle trend increases were presented for higher density QC prints based on DECT linear regression models. Reduced chi-squared values indicate uniform and reproducible heat bed temperature measurements.
CONCLUSIONS: This work offers an innovative approach toward evaluating and monitoring FDM system performance. Future work should track performance over a longer time period and across a wider variety of printers.