SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 73 Issue: 2

Determination of bacterial load on real bone and 3D printing bone models used in veterinary anatomy education

Sedef Selviler Sizer(ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ, VETERİNER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-1990-4507
Semih Kurt(Ondokuz mayıs üniversitesi veteriner fakültesi)0000-0002-5160-7772
Şeyda Yaman(ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ, VETERİNER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-2175-6109
Zeynep Semerci(ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ, VETERİNER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-6570-2693
Fatmanur Sıla Keskin(ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ, VETERİNER FAKÜLTESİ)0009-0004-6139-299X
Burcu Onuk(ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ, VETERİNER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-8617-3188
Murat Kabak(ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ, VETERİNER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-4255-1372
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-02-16
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result, it was observed that antibacterial PLA was the most hygienic model under laboratory conditions, that sterilization by formaldehyde fumigation effectively eliminated bacteria, and that it did not cause any visible deformation or discoloration of the filaments.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In veterinary anatomy education, real bones used for instructional purposes often develop problems over time, including wear, odor, and mold.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In recent years, educational materials have been produced using 3D printing technologies with different filaments such as PLA, PETG, ABS, and TPU.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, it was observed that antibacterial PLA was the most hygienic model under laboratory conditions, that sterilization by formaldehyde fumigation effectively eliminated bacteria, and that it did not cause any visible deformation or discoloration of the filaments.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Anatomy · Antibacterial PLA · bone

Abstract

In veterinary anatomy education, real bones used for instructional purposes often develop problems over time, including wear, odor, and mold. In recent years, educational materials have been produced using 3D printing technologies with different filaments such as PLA, PETG, ABS, and TPU. No information in the literature addresses the hygiene-related advantages or disadvantages of real bone compared with produced prints in the laboratory. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the health suitability of 3D bone models produced using standard PLA and antibacterial PLA, and of educational models consisting of real bone. In this study, a total of 15 models (five of each) were examined and sterilized using formaldehyde fumigation. All models were used in the student laboratory for three months. At the end of this period, subsamples were taken from each sample to determine aerobic mesophilic bacterial loads. Among the real bones, the highest bacterial loads were found in the axis and the cranium. Bacterial loads were similar in the scapula, humerus, and femur and in models of these bones fabricated from standard PLA. No bacteria were isolated from any of the antibacterial PLA models. As a result, it was observed that antibacterial PLA was the most hygienic model under laboratory conditions, that sterilization by formaldehyde fumigation effectively eliminated bacteria, and that it did not cause any visible deformation or discoloration of the filaments.

🔖

Cite This Article

Sizer, S. S., Kurt, S., Yaman, Ş., Semerci, Z., Keskin, F. S., Onuk, B., Kabak, M. (2026). Determination of bacterial load on real bone and 3D printing bone models used in veterinary anatomy education. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume: 73 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.33988/auvfd.1723569

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. AbouHashem Y, Dayal M, Savanah S, et al (2015): The application of 3D printing in anatomy education. Med Educ Online, 20, 29847.
  2. Altunkaynak D, Duman B, Çetinkaya K (2020): 5 axis 3D printer design and application. Int J 3D Printing Tech Dig Ind, 4, 124-138.
  3. Anonymous (2021): What is FDM? https://3dbaskial.com/fdm-nedir/. Accessed: 06.11.2024.
  4. Azer SA, Azer S (2016): 3D anatomy models and impact on learning: a review of the quality of the literature. Health Prof Educ, 2, 80-98.
  5. Bakıcı C, Güvener O, Çağdaş O (2021): 3D printing modeling of the digital skeleton of the horse. Vet Hekim Der Derg, 92, 152-158.
  6. Block SS (2001): Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, New York, USA.
  7. Boğa C, Seyedzavvar M, Zehir B (2021): Experimental investigation on the effects of internal architecture on the mechanical properties of 3D printed PLA components. European J Sci Technol, 24, 119-124.
  8. Cohen J, Reyes SA (2015): Creation of a 3D printed temporal bone model from clinical CT data. Am J Otolaryngol, 36, 619-624.
  9. Davis FJ, Mitchell GR (2008): Polyurethane based materials with applications in medical devices. 27-48. In: P Bártolo, B Bidanda (Eds), Bio-materials and prototyping applications in medicine. Springer, USA
  10. De Alcântara Leite dos Reis D, Gouveia BLR, Júnior JCR, et al (2019): Comparative assessment of anatomical details of thoracic limb bones of a horse to that of models produced via scanning and 3D printing. 3D Print Med, 5, 1-10.
  11. Demir KBE, Çaka C, Akbulut Y, et al (2016): The use of three dimensional printing technologies in education: Practices in Turkey. Ege J Educ, 2, 481 - 503.
  12. DeStefano V, Khan S, Tabada A (2020): Applications of PLA in modern medicine. Eng Regen, 1, 76-87.
  13. Erdoğan M, Şimşek T, Levent U (2020): Dimensional evaluation of the mandible models with obtained 3D printer. BSEU J Sci, 7, 444-451.
  14. Fuentes JM, Arrieta MP, Boronat T, et al (2022): Effects of steam heat and dry heat sterilization processes on 3D printed commercial polymers printed by fused deposition modeling. Polymers, 14, 855.
  15. Garnica-Bohórquez I, Güiza-Argüello VR, López-Gualdrón CI (2023): Effect of sterilization on the dimensional and mechanical behavior of polylactic acid pieces produced by fused deposition modeling. Polymers, 15, 3317.
  16. Geyik ÖG, Nalbant B, Hüsemoğlu RB, et al (2019): Investigation of surface adhesion of MCF-7 cells in 3D printed PET and PLA tissue Scaffold models. J Med Innov Technol, 1, 45-50.
  17. Hugo WB, Ayliffe G, Russell AD (1999): Principles and Practice of Disinfection, Preservation, and Sterilisation. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, United Kingdom.
  18. Karagöz R, Erensoy H, Kandemir GK (2022): Sterilization of pharmaceutical products. Yeni Yüzyıl J Med Sci, 3, 199-205.
  19. Komarnitki I, Skadorwa T, Dziedzic D, et al (2019): Are anatomical specimens plastinated using cold-temperature S10 silicone technique microbiologically safe?. J Plastination, 34, 19-24.
  20. Kurt S, Selviler‐Sizer S, Onuk B, Kabak M (2022): Comparison of sheep scapula models created with polylactic acid and thermoplastic polyurethane filaments by three‐dimensional modelling. Anat Histol Embryol, 51, 244-249.
  21. Kurt S, Sizer SS, Onuk B, Kabak M (2020): 3D modeling of sheep humerus in computer environment. 30-31. In: Proceedings of 4th International 19 May Innovative Scientific Approaches Congress, Türkiye.
  22. Kürtüncü M, Arslan N, Yaylacı B, et al (2018): Emerging technology in health: three-dimensional printing. (In Turkish). Int J 3D Printing Tech Dig Ind, 2, 99-110.
  23. Lim KHA, Loo ZY, Goldie SJ, et al (2016): Use of 3D printed models in medical education: a randomized control trial comparing 3D prints versus cadaveric materials for learning external cardiac anatomy. Anat Sci Educ, 9, 213-221.
  24. Maróti P, Kocsis B, Ferencz A, et al (2020): Differential thermal analysis of the antibacterial effect of PLA-based materials planned for 3D printing. J Therm Anal Calorim, 139, 367-374.
  25. McDonnell G, Russell AD (1999): Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action, and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev, 12, 147-179.
  26. McMenamin PG, Quayle MR, McHenry CR, et al (2014): The production of anatomical teaching resources using three‐dimensional (3D) printing technology. Anat Sci Educ, 7, 479-486.
  27. Mwema FM, Akinlabi ET (2020): Basics Of Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM). 1-15. In: JP Davim (Ed), Fused Deposition Modeling. Springer, Switzerland.
  28. Neijhoft J, Henrich D, Kammerer A, et al (2023): Sterilization of PLA after fused filament fabrication 3D printing: evaluation on inherent sterility and the impossibility of autoclavation. Polymers, 15, 369.
  29. Oleshko O, Berladir K, Oleshko T, et al (2025): Antibacterial Properties Of The Biodegradable 3D-Printed Pcl/Pla Scaffolds With Silver Nanoparticles. 3-14. In: FJG Silva, V Ivanov, AMG Pinto, RCM Sales-Contini (Eds), Advances in Design Simulation, Manufacturing VIII. Springer, Switzerland.
  30. Oth O, Dauchot C, Orellana M, et al (2019): How to sterilize 3D printed objects for surgical use? An evaluation of the volumetric deformation of 3D-printed genioplasty guide in PLA and PETG after sterilization by low-temperature hydrogen peroxide gas plasma. Open Dent J, 13, 410-417.
  31. Özkadif S (2015): Some veterinary anatomic studies fulfilled using three dimensional reconstruction. BTUJLS, 5, 288-295.
  32. Pérez Davila S, González Rodríguez L, Chiussi S, et al (2021): How to sterilize polylactic acid based medical devices? Polymers, 13, 2115.
  33. Preece D, Williams SB, Lam R, et al (2013): “Let's get physical”: advantages of a physical model over 3D computer models and textbooks in learning imaging anatomy. Anat Sci Educ, 6, 216-224.
  34. Rogers W (2012): Sterilisation Techniques For Polymers. 151-211. In: S Lerouge, A Simmons (Eds), Sterilisation of Biomaterials and Medical Devicesed., Woodhead Publishing, United Kingdom.
  35. Rynio P, Galant K, Wójcik Ł, et al (2022): Effects of sterilization methods on different 3D printable materials for templates of physician-modified aortic stent grafts used in vascular surgery—A preliminary study. Int J Mol Sci, 23, 3539.
  36. Seçgin Y, Toy Ş, Solmaz H, et al (2024): Analysis of an anatomy laboratory for microbiological contamination. Northwestern Med J, 4, 106-112.
  37. Solis D, Calvo P, Fonthal F, et al (2024): Development Of Anatomical Models Using 3D Printing For Multiple Purposes In Medicine And Engineering. 1-6. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Congress of Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering, Colombia.
  38. Sürmen, HK (2019): Additive manufacturing (3D printing): technologies and applications. UUJFE, 24, 373-392.
  39. Şahin K, Turan BO (2018): Comparative analysis of 3D printer technologies. SSAD, 2, 97-116.
  40. Tabaac B, Goldberg G, Alvarez L, et al (2013): Bacteria detected on surfaces of formalin fixed anatomy cadavers. IJAE, 118, 1-5.
  41. Thomas DB, Hiscox JD, Dixon BJ, et al (2016): 3D scanning and printing skeletal tissues for anatomy education. J Anat, 229, 473-481.
  42. Told R, Ujfalusi Z, Pentek A, et al (2022): A state-of-the-art guide to the sterilization of thermoplastic polymers and resin materials used in the additive manufacturing of medical devices. Mater Des, 223, 111119.
  43. Vatansever HS, Kurt FÖ, Kendirci R, et al (2022): In vitro and in vivo compliance of 3D printed pla scaffolds with differentiated mesenchymal stem cells. JOHSE, 6, 45-51.
  44. Wilhite R, Wölfel I (2019): 3D Printing for veterinary anatomy: An overview. Anat Histol Embryol, 48, 609-620.