ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
A novel method to simulate radiographs of 3D printed objects.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A novel method to simulate radiographs of 3D printed objects.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background3D printing has a number of applications within medicine and healthcare. In applications involving radiography, the internal infill structure and external geometry of a 3D printed part can produce undesirable artifacts, limiting the full potential of 3D printing as a manufacturing technology. While the mechanical performance of a 3D printed part can be easily simulated, it is difficult to simulate the radiographic artifact produced. PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to develop a tool that allows users to simulate the radiographic artifact produced by a 3D printed object.
methodsThree regular hexagons of identical geometry were sliced and 3D printed using polylactic acid (PLA) filament on a fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printer with varying infill patterns: rectilinear grid, cubic, and gyroid. The hexagons were then radiographed using clinical-standard scanning protocols. The captured radiographs were compared to simulated radiographs generated using the G-Code developed when the objects were sliced. The physical and simulated virtual radiographs were compared to one another, and the simulated angle of least and greatest artifact was noted.
resultsStrong visual agreement was found between the physically captured and simulated virtual radiographs. The projection angles that produced the least amount of artifact were 22.5°, 22.5°, and 12.25° for grid, cubic, and gyroid infills, respectively. The projection angles that produced the greatest amount of artifact were 0°, 45°, and 45° for grid, cubic, and gyroid infills, respectively.
conclusionsThis work provides designers of 3D printed components with a new way to evaluate a design's radiographic performance. Previously, designers would have to physically print and radiograph a part to determine the artifact produced. This work outlines the development of a tool that simulates the radiograph of a 3D printed part from multiple different projections, saving designers time to iterate to their final design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.