Air quality assessment of dissecting a J750 three-dimensional printed temporal bone and recommendations 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a method that is used to create models for the use of simulated temporal bone dissection and has increasing availability in biomedical departments. The advantages of 3D printing are cheaper cost, transportability, readily accessible dissection with minimal preparation and reduced ethical restrictions in comparison to the use of cadaveric specimens. A high standard of likeness to cadaveric anatomy is seen with the use of a multi-material jet printer which can account for the variation in qualities of the hard bone and soft tissue structures within the middle ear and temporal bone. There remains a concern that the heat of drilling the materials may create harmful exposure of inhalable fumes and aerosols including volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the air quality proximal to the dissector of 3D printed materials which are currently commonly used for printing temporal bones and provide a recommendation for dissecting these materials. Methods: An occupational safety assessment was performed in a simulated temporal bone laboratory with four different printed materials cited in the literature (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polylactic acid, white resin, multi-material). These were used to print temporal bone models with three different 3D printing processes (fused filament fabrication, multi-material jetting, stereolithography). An otolaryngology/head and neck surgical registrar conducted a temporal bone dissection on the models while wearing air quality sampling badges to determine the aerosol exposure by measuring the VOCs and total inhalable particles and respirable particles in the air proximal to the dissector. Results: The results of the samples from the badges revealed that the individual VOC samples and particulate counts (respirable and inhalable particles) were well below the maximum limit recommended concentrations [Safe Work Australia (SWA) and Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists (AIOH)]. Conclusions: The study findings reveal that dissection of 3D printed temporal bones, in particular the multi-material Stratasys J750 printed models, can be dissected within the safe limits of AIOH and SWA standards to inhalable, respirable particles and individually tested VOCs. However, our recommendations include the use of personal protective equipment, local extraction, and ventilation within the room.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".