MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3169536997 · doi:10.1259/dmfr.20200323

An anthropomorphic maxillofacial phantom using 3-dimensional printing, polyurethane rubber and epoxy resin for dental imaging and dosimetry

2021· article· en· W3169536997 on OpenAlexafffund
Sawyer Rhae Badiuk, David Sasaki, Daniel W. Rickey

Bibliographic record

VenueDentomaxillofacial Radiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsImaging phantomMaterials scienceStereolithographyPolyurethane3D printingEpoxyBiomedical engineeringDosimetryNatural rubber3d printedComposite materialNuclear medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to construct an anthropomorphic maxillofacial phantom for dental imaging and dosimetry purposes using three-dimensional (3D) printing technology and materials that simulate the radiographic properties of tissues. METHODS: Stereolithography photoreactive resins, polyurethane rubber and epoxy resin were modified by adding calcium carbonate and strontium carbonate powders or glass bubbles. These additives were used to change the materials' CT numbers to mimic various body tissues. A maxillofacial phantom was designed using CT images of a head. RESULTS: Commercial 3D printing resins were found to have CT numbers near 120 HU and were used to print intervertebral discs and an external skin for the maxillofacial phantom. By adding various amounts of calcium carbonate and strontium carbonate powders the CT number of the resin was raised to 1000 & 1500 HU and used to print bone mimics. Epoxy resin modified by adding glass bubbles was used in assembly and as a cartilaginous mimic. Glass bubbles were added to polyurethane rubber to reduce the CT number to simulate soft tissue and filled spaces between the printed anatomy and external skin of the phantom. CONCLUSION: The maxillofacial phantom designed for dental imaging and dosimetry constructed using 3D printing, polyurethane rubbers and epoxy resins represented a patient anatomically and radiographically. The results of the designed phantom, materials and assembly process can be applied to generate different phantoms that better represent diverse patient types and accommodate different ion chambers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDentomaxillofacial RadiologySame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207