U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Display Settings:

Items per page

PMC Full-Text Search Results

Items: 7

2.
Fig 7

Fig 7. Mean score with standard error for the summed question scores with standard error.. From: Various 3D printed materials mimic bone ultrasonographically: 3D printed models of the equine cervical articular process joints as a simulator for ultrasound guided intra-articular injections.

Yellow: positive control, green: models not statistically different from the positive control, blue: models trending towards a statistical difference when compared to the positive, red: models statistically different from the positive control.

Alexandra Beaulieu, et al. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0220332.
3.
Fig 2

Fig 2. Gold standard model preparation.. From: Various 3D printed materials mimic bone ultrasonographically: 3D printed models of the equine cervical articular process joints as a simulator for ultrasound guided intra-articular injections.

(A) Cervical vertebrae placed in a tray following natural dissection by beetle digestion. (B) 3D printed models of cervical vertebrae and a box, made of Vero resin. (C) Silicon mold obtained following the addition of Mold Max 20 to the 3D printed box shown in B. (D) Dissected vertebrae were inserted into the silicon mold in C, and fixated in anatomical alignment with epoxy.

Alexandra Beaulieu, et al. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0220332.
4.
Fig 4

Fig 4. Ultrasound image of model C immersed in water.. From: Various 3D printed materials mimic bone ultrasonographically: 3D printed models of the equine cervical articular process joints as a simulator for ultrasound guided intra-articular injections.

Model C made of nylon PA 12 using an EOS Formiga P100 printer and selective laser sintering printing technology. Note the characteristic hyperechoic appearance created by the strong reflection of the ultrasound beam by the model, simulating bone (*). The joint space is visible as a gap between the cranial (left) and caudal (right) articular processes (white arrow).

Alexandra Beaulieu, et al. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0220332.
5.
Fig 5

Fig 5. Ultrasound images comparing two 3D printed models to the gold standard.. From: Various 3D printed materials mimic bone ultrasonographically: 3D printed models of the equine cervical articular process joints as a simulator for ultrasound guided intra-articular injections.

Both models are printed using the SLA printing technology and a surface resolution of 100 μm. The shell thickness of both models differs (2 mm vs. 5 mm). Note the similar cortical surface of bone (gold standard) and the 5 mm thick model, whereas multiple reflections are displayed beneath the surface of the 2 mm thick model.

Alexandra Beaulieu, et al. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0220332.
6.
Fig 3

Fig 3. Four representative 3D printed models of an equine articular process joint.. From: Various 3D printed materials mimic bone ultrasonographically: 3D printed models of the equine cervical articular process joints as a simulator for ultrasound guided intra-articular injections.

The models are printed with a surface resolution of 100 μm and a shell thickness of 5 mm. (A) Model H: Onyx nylon with chopped carbon fiber, Markforged Onyx Two, fused deposition modeling. (B) Model I: polylactic acid, Ultimaker 3 Extended, fused deposition modeling. (C) Model D: gypsum, ProJet CJP 660 Pro, ColorJet Printing. (D) Model M: polylactic acid, Makerbot Replicator +, fused deposition modeling.

Alexandra Beaulieu, et al. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0220332.
7.
Fig 6

Fig 6. Mean score with standard error for questions 2–5 (graph B-E) and median score for questions 1 and 6 (graph Aa and F)b.. From: Various 3D printed materials mimic bone ultrasonographically: 3D printed models of the equine cervical articular process joints as a simulator for ultrasound guided intra-articular injections.

Yellow: positive control, green: models not statistically different from the positive control, blue: models trending towards a statistical difference when compared to the positive control, red: models statistically different from the positive control. Question 3 and 4 (graphs C and D respectively) did not reach a significant F value and post-hoc tests were therefore not performed; all models are displayed in grey. a Note that the model rank order based on the p values and medians differs for graph A since the Friedmans test from which the p values were calculated is based on the rank sums and not the medians. b The mean and median scores are respectively reported for normally and non-normally distributed data.

Alexandra Beaulieu, et al. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0220332.

Display Settings:

Items per page

Supplemental Content

Recent activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...
Support Center