From: Quality assurance of 3D-printed patient specific anatomical models: a systematic review
Exclusion | Example |
---|---|
Criteria | |
influences on the printing process from the engineers’ perspective | [32] |
influences of slicing tools on printing accuracy from the engineers’ perspective | [48] |
accuracy of implants | [49] |
assessment of special post processing techniques like vapor smoothing | [50] |
assessment of surface properties | [51] |
assessment of STL-export from CAD software | [52] |
evaluation of ageing process of printed models | [53] |
evaluation of thermoformed appliances | [54] |
using 3D-printed models for assessment of image acquisition | [55] |
phantoms for MRI | [56] |
evaluation of an experimental full-automatic segmentation algorithm | [57] |
evaluation of 3D-printed models as diagnostic tool in comparison to the standard | [58] |
accuracy assessment of 3D-printed surgical guides | [59] |
realistic surgery models for procedure assessment | [60] |
evaluation of 3D-printed models as a diagnostic tool in comparison to the standard | [58] |
only visual evaluation | [61] |
only review | [62] |
only clinical study | [63] |
only case report | [64] |
no validation | [65] |