Post-sterilization Dimensional Accuracy of Methacrylate Monomer Biocompatible Three-Dimensionally Printed Mock Surgical Guides

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the post-sterilization dimensional accuracy of a standardized drilling guide, three-dimensionally printed using biocompatible methacrylate monomers.

Study Design A mock surgical guide was designed and printed in five resins (n = 5/material) using a commercially available desktop stereolithography printer. Pre- and post-sterilization dimensions were measured for each sterilization method (steam, ethylene oxide, hydrogen peroxide gas), then statistically compared; p-value less than or equal 0.05 was considered significant.

Results While all resins produced highly accurate replicas of the designed guide, the amber and black resins were unaffected by any sterilization method (p ≥ 0.9). For other materials, ethylene oxide produced the largest dimensional changes. However, mean post-sterilization dimensional changes for all materials and sterilization methods remained less than or equal to 0.05mm

Conclusion This study demonstrated that post-sterilization dimensional change of evaluated biomaterials was minimal, and less than previously reported. Additionally, amber and black resins may be preferred to reduce post-sterilization dimensional change, as they were unaffected by any sterilization method. Given the results of this study, surgeons should feel confident using the Form 3B printer to create patient surgical guides. Furthermore, bioresins may provide safer alternatives for patients compared with other three-dimensional printed materials.

Keywords

3D printed - surgical guide - sterilization - orthopaedic surgery - patient-specific guides

Authors' Contribution

D.M.M. contributed to the conception, study design, acquisition of data, data analysis and interpretation. L.M.D. contributed to study design. All authors drafted, revised, and approved the submitted manuscript and are publicly responsible for the relevant content.

Publication History

Received: 19 December 2022

Accepted: 22 April 2023

Article published online:
16 June 2023

• References

• 1 Shinn R, Park C, DeBose K, Hsu FC, Cecere T, Rossmeisl J. Feasibility and accuracy of 3D printed patient-specific skull contoured brain biopsy guides. Vet Surg 2021; 50 (05) 933-943
• 2 Mariani CL, Zlotnick JA, Harrysson O. et al. Accuracy of three-dimensionally printed animal-specific drill guides for implant placement in canine thoracic vertebrae: a cadaveric study. Vet Surg 2021; 50 (02) 294-302
• 3 McCarthy DA, Granger LA, Aulakh KS, Gines JA. Accuracy of a drilling with a custom 3D printed guide or free-hand technique in canine experimental sacroiliac luxations. Vet Surg 2022; 51 (01) 182-190
• 4 Worth AJ, Crosse KR, Kersley A. Computer-assisted surgery using 3D printed saw guides for acute correction of antebrachial angular limb deformities in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2019; 32 (03) 241-249
• 5 Toni C, Oxley B, Behr S. Atlanto-axial ventral stabilisation using 3D-printed patient-specific drill guides for placement of bicortical screws in dogs. J Small Anim Pract 2020; 61 (10) 609-616
• 6 Marturello DM, James JC, Perry KL, Déjardin LM. Accuracy of anatomic 3-dimensionally printed canine humeral models. Vet Surg 2023; 52 (01) 116-126
• 7 Boursier JF, Fournet A, Bassanino J, Manassero M, Bedu AS, Leperlier D. Reproducibility, accuracy and effect of autoclave sterilization on a thermoplastic three-dimensional model printed by a desktop fused deposition modelling three-dimensional printer. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2018; 31 (06) 422-430
• 8 Huang YH, Lee B, Chuy JA, Goldschmidt SL. 3D printing for surgical planning of canine oral and maxillofacial surgeries. 3D Print Med 2022; 8 (01) 1-7
• 9 Darrow BG, Snowdon KA, Hespel A. Accuracy of patient-specific 3D printed drill guides in the placement of a canine coxofemoral toggle pin through a minimally invasive approach. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2021; 34 (01) 1-8
• 10 Ballard DH, Tappa K, Boyer CJ. et al. Antibiotics in 3D-printed implants, instruments and materials: benefits, challenges and future directions. 3D Print Med 2019; 3 (02) 83-93
• 11 Gong S, Xu W, Wang R. et al. Patient-specific instrumentation improved axial alignment of the femoral component, operative time and perioperative blood loss after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (04) 1083-1095
• 12 Marei HF, Alshaia A, Alarifi S, Almasoud N, Abdelhady A. Effect of steam heat sterilization on the accuracy of 3D printed surgical guides. Implant Dent 2019; 28 (04) 372-377
• 13 Christensen A, Rybicki FJ. Maintaining safety and efficacy for 3D printing in medicine. 3D Print Med 2017; 3 (01) 1-10
• 14 Centers for disease control and prevention. “Disinfection of healthcare equipment.” 2019 May. Accessed April 29, 2023 at: https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/healthcare-equipment.html
• 15 Dempsey DJ, Thirucote RR. Sterilization of medical devices: a review. J Biomater Appl 1989; 3 (03) 454-523
• 16 Dion M, Parker W. Steam sterilization principles. Pharm Sci 2013; 33 (06) 1-8
• 17 Mendes GC, Brandão TR, Silva CL. Ethylene oxide sterilization of medical devices: a review. Am J Infect Control 2007; 35 (09) 574-581
• 18 Shintani H. Ethylene oxide gas sterilization of medical devices. Biocontrol Sci 2017; 22 (01) 1-16
• 19 Okpara-Hofmann J, Knoll M, Dürr M, Schmitt B, Borneff-Lipp M. Comparison of low-temperature hydrogen peroxide gas plasma sterilization for endoscopes using various Sterrad models. J Hosp Infect 2005; 59 (04) 280-285
• 20 Török G, Gombocz P, Bognár E. et al. Effects of disinfection and sterilization on the dimensional changes and mechanical properties of 3D printed surgical guides for implant therapy - pilot study. BMC Oral Health 2020; 20 (01) 19
• 21 Toro M, Cardona A, Restrepo D, Buitrago L. Does vaporized hydrogen peroxide sterilization affect the geometrical properties of anatomic models and guides 3D printed from computed tomography images?. 3D Print Med 2021; 7 (01) 1-10
• 22 Ferràs-Tarragó J, Sabalza-Baztán O, Sahuquillo-Arce JM. et al. Autoclave sterilization of an in-house 3D-printed polylactic acid piece: biological safety and heat-induced deformation. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2022; 48 (05) 3901-3910
• 23 Shea GK, Wu KL, Li IW. et al. A review of the manufacturing process and infection rate of 3D-printed models and guides sterilized by hydrogen peroxide plasma and utilized intra-operatively. 3D Print Med 2020; 6 (01) 1-11
• 24 Aguado-Maestro I, De Frutos-Serna M, González-Nava A, Merino-De Santos AB, García-Alonso M. Are the common sterilization methods completely effective for our in-house 3D printed biomodels and surgical guides?. Injury 2021; 52 (06) 1341-1345
• 25 Bosc R, Tortolano L, Hersant B. et al. Bacteriological and mechanical impact of the Sterrad sterilization method on personalized 3D printed guides for mandibular reconstruction. Sci Rep 2021; 11 (01) 581
• 26 Sharma N, Cao S, Msallem B. et al. Effects of steam sterilization on 3D printed biocompatible resin materials for surgical guides—an accuracy assessment study. J Clin Med 2020; 9 (05) 1506
• 27 van Dal V. Effect of sterilization on 3D printed patient-specific surgical guides. 2021
• 28 Guerra AJ, Cano P, Rabionet M, Puig T, Ciurana J. Effects of different sterilization processes on the properties of a novel 3D-printed polycaprolactone stent. Polym Adv Technol 2018; 29 (08) 2327-2335
• 29 Marturello DM, von Pfeil DJF, Déjardin LM. Mechanical comparison of two small interlocking nails in torsion using a feline bone surrogate. Vet Surg 2020; 49 (02) 380-389
• 30 Marturello DM, von Pfeil DJF, Déjardin LM. Evaluation of a feline bone surrogate and in vitro mechanical comparison of small interlocking nail systems in mediolateral bending. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2021; 34 (04) 223-233
• 31 Cone JA, Martin TM, Marcellin-Little DJ, Harrysson OLA, Griffith EH. Accuracy and repeatability of long-bone replicas of small animals fabricated by use of low-end and high-end commercial three-dimensional printers. Am J Vet Res 2017; 78 (08) 900-905
• 32 Lopes AJ, Perez MA, Espalin D, Wicker RB. Comparison of ranking models to evaluate desktop 3D printers in a growing market. Addit Manuf 2020; 35: 101291
• 33 Favero CS, English JD, Cozad BE, Wirthlin JO, Short MM, Kasper FK. Effect of print layer height and printer type on the accuracy of 3-dimensional printed orthodontic models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017; 152 (04) 557-565
• 34 Fitzwater KL, Marcellin-Little DJ, Harrysson OL, Osborne JA, Poindexter EC. Evaluation of the effect of computed tomography scan protocols and freeform fabrication methods on bone biomodel accuracy. Am J Vet Res 2011; 72 (09) 1178-1185
• 35 Ibrahim D, Broilo TL, Heitz C. et al. Dimensional error of selective laser sintering, three-dimensional printing and PolyJet models in the reproduction of mandibular anatomy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2009; 37 (03) 167-173
• 36 Mejia S, Stewart N, Miller A. et al. Accuracy of external measurements of 3-dimensional (3D) printed biomodels of the canine radius used in an in-hospital setting. Can J Vet Res 2019; 83 (03) 181-186
• 37 Silva DN, Gerhardt de Oliveira M, Meurer E, Meurer MI, Lopes da Silva JV, Santa-Bárbara A. Dimensional error in selective laser sintering and 3D-printing of models for craniomaxillary anatomy reconstruction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2008; 36 (08) 443-449
• 38 Webster CE, Marcellin-Little DJ, Koballa EM, Stallrich JW, Harrysson OLA. Evaluation of the geometric accuracy of computed tomography and microcomputed tomography of the articular surface of the distal portion of the radius of cats. Am J Vet Res 2019; 80 (10) 976-984