SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of 3D Printing Technologies and Digital Industry / 2025 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 3

THE EVALUATION OF MORPHOMETRY OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL RADIUS BONE MODELS USING OPEN-SOURCE MEDICAL PROGRAMS

Alperen Sarıtaş(Afyonkarahisar Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi)0000-0003-3523-1936
Abdülkadir Bilir(Afyonkarahisar Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi)0000-0003-0633-9542
Ozan Turamanlar(İZMİR KATİP ÇELEBİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0785-483X
Özgür Verim(AFYON KOCATEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1575-2630
Çiğdem Özer Gökaslan(Afyonkarahisar Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi)0000-0001-5345-1735
Gülan Albaş Kurt(Afyonkarahisar Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi)0000-0002-4007-9062
Pages
579–587
Publication Date
2025-12-28
🏛️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)

Nevertheless, only the 3D Slicer® software demonstrated a high level of agreement in volume measurements (Cronbach's Alpha: 0.996; 95% CI: 0.988–0.999), standing out among the open-source medical software options.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The use of three-dimensional (3D) models, created using data obtained from radiological images, has significantly increased in recent years across the fields of medicine and health.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, while the use of commercial software presents a significant economic burden, questions remain regarding model accuracy and output quality in open-source solutions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Nevertheless, only the 3D Slicer® software demonstrated a high level of agreement in volume measurements (Cronbach's Alpha: 0.996; 95% CI: 0.988–0.999), standing out among the open-source medical software options.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:3D Modeling · Bland-Altman Analysis · Morphometry

Abstract

The use of three-dimensional (3D) models, created using data obtained from radiological images, has significantly increased in recent years across the fields of medicine and health. The digitization of these models primarily utilizes open-source or commercial software. However, while the use of commercial software presents a significant economic burden, questions remain regarding model accuracy and output quality in open-source solutions. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the morphometric accuracy of 3D radius models created using open-source medical software (InVesalius®, ITK-SNAP®, Seg3D®, and 3D Slicer®) by comparing them with gold standard (dry bone) measurements. Computed Tomography images of 15 dry human radius bones were used to generate the 3D digital models. These images were used to obtain 3D digital models via four different open-source software programs. Model lengths were calculated using MeshLab®, and volumes were calculated using Mimics® software. For gold standard comparison, the actual bone lengths were measured using digital calipers, and volumes were measured based on the Archimedes Principle.As a result, successful 3D digital radius models were created with all four programs. When the obtained measurements were compared with the gold standard values, no statistically significant difference was found between the programs (p > 0.05). Nevertheless, only the 3D Slicer® software demonstrated a high level of agreement in volume measurements (Cronbach's Alpha: 0.996; 95% CI: 0.988–0.999), standing out among the open-source medical software options.

Özet

The use of three-dimensional (3D) models, created using data obtained from radiological images, has significantly increased in recent years across the fields of medicine and health. The digitization of these models primarily utilizes open-source or commercial software. However, while the use of commercial software presents a significant economic burden, questions remain regarding model accuracy and output quality in open-source solutions. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the morphometric accuracy of 3D radius models created using open-source medical software (InVesalius®, ITK-SNAP®, Seg3D®, and 3D Slicer®) by comparing them with gold standard (dry bone) measurements. Computed Tomography images of 15 dry human radius bones were used to generate the 3D digital models. These images were used to obtain 3D digital models via four different open-source software programs. Model lengths were calculated using MeshLab®, and volumes were calculated using Mimics® software. For gold standard comparison, the actual bone lengths were measured using digital calipers, and volumes were measured based on the Archimedes Principle.As a result, successful 3D digital radius models were created with all four programs. When the obtained measurements were compared with the gold standard values, no statistically significant difference was found between the programs (p > 0.05). Nevertheless, only the 3D Slicer® software demonstrated a high level of agreement in volume measurements (Cronbach's Alpha: 0.996; 95% CI: 0.988–0.999), standing out among the open-source medical software options.

🔖

Cite This Article

Sarıtaş, A., Bilir, A., Turamanlar, O., Verim, Ö., Gökaslan, Ç. Ö., Kurt, G. A. (2025). THE EVALUATION OF MORPHOMETRY OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL RADIUS BONE MODELS USING OPEN-SOURCE MEDICAL PROGRAMS. International Journal of 3D Printing Technologies and Digital Industry, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 3, 579–587. https://doi.org/10.46519/ij3dptdi.1697749

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (32)

  1. Topal, A.D. and Ocak, M.A., "The effect of the anatomy course prepared by the blended learning environment on students academic achievement" Educational Technology Theory and Practice, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Pages 48-62, 2014.
  2. Zilverschoon, M., Vincken, K.L., Bleys, R.L.A.W., “The virtual dissecting room: creating highly detailed anatomy models for educational purposes”, Journal of Biomedical Informatics, Vol. 65, Pages 58-75, 2017.
  3. Verhoff, M.A., Ramsthaler, F., Krähahn, J., Deml, U., Gille, R.J., Grabherr, S., Thali, M.J., Kreutz, K., “Digital forensic osteology-possibilities in cooperation with the Virtopsy project”, Forensic Science International, Vol. 174, Issue 2, Pages 152-156, 2008.
  4. Cohen, J. and Reyes, S.A., “Creation of a 3D printed temporal bone model from clinical CT data”, American Journal of Otolaryngology, Vol. 36, Issue 5, Pages 619-624, 2015.
  5. McGurk, M., Amis, A.A., Potamianos, P., Goodger, N.M., “Rapid prototyping techniques for anatomical modelling in medicine”, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Vol. 79, Issue 3, Pages 169-174, 1997.
  6. Waran, V., Narayanan, V., Karuppiah, R., Pancharatman, D., Chandran, H., Raman, R., Rahman, Z.A.A., Owen, S.L.F., Aziz, T.Z., “Injecting realism in surgical training-initial simulation experience with custom 3D models”, Journal of Surgical Education, Vol. 71, Issue 2, Pages 193-197, 2014.
  7. Aydin, L. and Kucuk, S., “Design and construction of ankle foot orthosis by means of three dimensional printers”, Journal of Polytechnic, Vol. 20, Issue 1, Pages 1-8, 2017.
  8. Celebi̇, A., Tosun, H., Oncag, A.C., “Manufacturing a damaged skull with 3D printer and implant design”, International Journal of 3D Printing Technologies and Digital Industry, Vol. 1, Issue 1, Pages 27-35, 2017.
  9. Kizmazoglu, C., Aydin, H.E., Kaya, I., Husemoglu, R.B., Kalemci, O., Ozer, E., “Clinical outcome of patients with individualized 3D printing assisted C1-C2 fusion”, Osmangazi Journal of Medicine, Vol. 41, Issue 4, Pages 413-420, 2019.
  10. Ozsoy, K., and Kayacan, M.C., “Rapid prototyping lightweight custom-made skull implant by fused deposition modelling”, Uluborlu Journal of Vocational Sciences, Vol. 1, Issue 1, Pages 1-11, 2018.
  11. Mujika, K.M., Méndez, J.A.J., de Miguel, A.F., “Advantages and disadvantages in image processing with free software in radiology”, Journal of Medical Systems, Vol. 42, Issue 3, Pages 36, 2018.
  12. Yilmaz, H. and Sukman, S., “Modeling of bone tissue from computerized tomography images and printing with FDM method”, International Journal of 3D Printing Technologies and Digital Industry, Vol. 3, Issue 3, Pages 227-235, 2019.
  13. Erkilic, A.O., Oz, U., Ozkan, A., “Comparison of upper extremity volumes measured with water displacement and circumferential measurement”, International Journal of Sport Culture and Science, Vol. 4, Issue 3, Pages 665, 2016.
  14. Sung, V.C.T., Bhan, A., Vernon, S.A., “Agreement in assessing optic discs with a digital stereoscopic optic disc camera (discam) and heidelberg retina tomograph”, The British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 86, Issue 2, Pages 196-202, 2002.
  15. Yilmaz, H., Karapinar, B.O., Bas, O., Emirzeoglu, M., Nisari, M., “Estimation of girth of humeral head by measuring the biepicondylar distance: A validity and reliability study”, Annals of Medical Research, Vol. 31, Issue 3, Pages 254-259, 2024. 16. Guler, H. and Yilmaz, H., “Magnificent harmony in morphometric measurements of orbita and foramen magnum”, International Journal of Morphology, Vol. 41, Issue 2, Pages 445-450, 2023.
  16. Guler, H. and Yilmaz, H., “Can cranium size be predicted from orbit dimensions?”, Medical Records, Vol. 5, Issue 3, Pages 460-464, 2023.
  17. Schmauss, D., Haeberle, S., Hagl, C., Sodian, R., “Three-dimensional printing in cardiac surgery and interventional cardiology: a single-centre experience”, European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Vol. 47, Issue 6, Pages 1044-1052, 2015.
  18. Kim, J.C. and Hong, I.P., “Split-rib cranioplasty using a patient-specific three-dimensional printing model”, Archives of Plastic Surgery, Vol. 43, Issue 4, Pages 379-381, 2016.
  19. Arslan, N., Yaylaci, B., Eyupoglu, N.D., Kurtuncu, M., “Emerging technology in health: Three-dimensional printing”, International Journal of 3D Printing Technologies and Digital Industry, Vol. 2, Issue 2, Pages 99-110, 2018.
  20. Zhang, X., Hu, C., Yu, K., Bai, J., Tian, D., Xu, Y., Zhang, B., “Volar locking plate (VLP) versus non-locking plate (NLP) in the treatment of die-punch fractures of the distal radius, an observational study”, International Journal of Surgery, Vol. 34, Pages 142-147, 2016.
  21. Schweizer, A., Fürnstahl, P., Harders, M., Székely, G., Nagy, L., “Complex radius shaft malunion: osteotomy with computer-assisted planning”, Hand (New York), Vol. 5, Issue 2, Pages 171-178, 2010.
  22. Miyake, J., Murase, T., Moritomo, H., Sugamoto, K., Yoshikawa, H., “Distal radius osteotomy with volar locking plates based on computer simulation”, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Vol. 469, Issue 6, Pages 1766-1773, 2011.
  23. de Muinck Keizer, R.J.O., Lechner, K.M., Mulders, M.A.M., Schep, N.W.L., Eygendaal, D., Goslings, J.C., “Three-dimensional virtual planning of corrective osteotomies of distal radius malunions: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction, Vol. 12, Issue 2, Pages 77-89, 2017.
  24. Chen, C., Cai, L., Zheng, W., Wang, J., Guo, X., Chen, H., “The efficacy of using 3D printing models in the treatment of fractures: a randomised clinical trial”, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, Vol. 20, Issue 1, Pages 65, 2019.
  25. Inge, S., Brouwers, L., van der Heijden, F., Bemelman, M., “3D printing for corrective osteotomy of malunited distal radius fractures: a low-cost workflow”, BMJ Case Reports, Pages bcr2017223996, 2018.
  26. Youman, S., Dang, E., Jones, M., Duran, D., Brenseke, B., “The use of 3D printers in medical education with a focus on bone pathology”, Medical Science Educator, Vol. 31, Issue 2, Pages 581-588, 2021.
  27. Poleti, M.L., Fernandes, T.M.F., Pagin, O., Moretti, M.R., Rubira-Bullen, I.R.F., “Analysis of linear measurements on 3D surface models using CBCT data segmentation obtained by automatic standard pre-set thresholds in two segmentation software programs: an in vitro study”, Clinical Oral Investigations, Vol. 20, Issue 1, Pages 179-185, 2016.
  28. Tolentino, E. de S., Yamashita, F.C., de Albuquerque, S., Walewski, L.A., Iwaki, L.C.V., Takeshita, W.M., Silva, M.C., “Reliability and accuracy of linear measurements in cone-beam computed tomography using different software programs and voxel sizes”, Journal of Conservative Dentistry, Vol. 21, Issue 6, Pages 607-612, 2018.
  29. Fyllingen, E.H., Stensjøen, A.L., Berntsen, E.M., Solheim, O., Reinertsen, I., “Glioblastoma segmentation: Comparison of three different software packages”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 11, Issue 10, Pages e0164891, 2016.
  30. Virzì, A., Muller, C.O., Marret, J.B., Mille, E., Berteloot, L., Grévent, D., Boddaert, N., Gori, P., Sarnacki, S., Bloch, I., “Comprehensive review of 3D segmentation software tools for MRI usable for pelvic surgery planning”, Journal of Digital Imaging, Vol. 33, Issue 1, Pages 99-110, 2020.
  31. Stawiski, K., Trelińska, J., Baranska, D., Dachowska, I., Kotulska, K., Jóźwiak, S., Fendler, W., Młynarski, W., “What are the true volumes of SEGA tumors? Reliability of planimetric and popular semi-automated image segmentation methods”, Magma (New York, N. Y.), Vol. 30, Issue 4, Pages 397-405, 2017.
  32. Kollmann, P., Mautner, V.F., Koeppen, J., Wenzel, R., Friedman, J.M., Salamon, J., Farschtschi, S., “MRI based volumetric measurements of vestibular schwannomas in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2: comparison of three different software tools”, Scientific Reports, Vol. 10, Issue 1, Pages 11541, 2020.