Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Aug;26(8):e70159.
doi: 10.1002/acm2.70159.

A novel method to simulate radiographs of 3D printed objects

Maxwell C Campbell  1 , Steven I Pollmann  2 , Jaques S Milner  2 , Emily A Lalone  1   3 , David W Holdsworth  2   4
Affiliations

A novel method to simulate radiographs of 3D printed objects

Maxwell C Campbell et al. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2025 Aug.

Abstract

Background: 3D printing has a number of applications within medicine and healthcare. In applications involving radiography, the internal infill structure and external geometry of a 3D printed part can produce undesirable artifacts, limiting the full potential of 3D printing as a manufacturing technology. While the mechanical performance of a 3D printed part can be easily simulated, it is difficult to simulate the radiographic artifact produced.

Purpose: The purpose of this work was to develop a tool that allows users to simulate the radiographic artifact produced by a 3D printed object.

Methods: Three regular hexagons of identical geometry were sliced and 3D printed using polylactic acid (PLA) filament on a fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printer with varying infill patterns: rectilinear grid, cubic, and gyroid. The hexagons were then radiographed using clinical-standard scanning protocols. The captured radiographs were compared to simulated radiographs generated using the G-Code developed when the objects were sliced. The physical and simulated virtual radiographs were compared to one another, and the simulated angle of least and greatest artifact was noted.

Results: Strong visual agreement was found between the physically captured and simulated virtual radiographs. The projection angles that produced the least amount of artifact were 22.5°, 22.5°, and 12.25° for grid, cubic, and gyroid infills, respectively. The projection angles that produced the greatest amount of artifact were 0°, 45°, and 45° for grid, cubic, and gyroid infills, respectively.

Conclusions: This work provides designers of 3D printed components with a new way to evaluate a design's radiographic performance. Previously, designers would have to physically print and radiograph a part to determine the artifact produced. This work outlines the development of a tool that simulates the radiograph of a 3D printed part from multiple different projections, saving designers time to iterate to their final design.

Keywords: 3D printing; fused deposition modeling; radiography artifact.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Radiographic orientation of hexagonal specimens relative to the central ray.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Simulated radiographs of (a) grid infill, (b) cubic infill, and (c) gyroid infill, and physical radiographs of (d) grid infill, (e) cubic infill, and (f) gyroid infill.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Minimum artifact of (a) grid infill and (b) cubic infill, and (c) gyroid infill. These artifacts occur at angles (d) 22.5°, (e) 22.5°, and (f) 12.25° between the extruded direction and central ray for the grid, cubic, and gyroid infill patterns, respectively. The arrow indicates the extruded direction.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Maximum artifact of (a) grid infill, (b) cubic infill, and (c) gyroid infill. These artifacts occur at angles (d) 0°, (e) 45°, and (f) 45° between the extruded direction and central ray for the grid, cubic, and gyroid infill patterns, respectively. The arrow indicates the extruded direction.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Liaw CY, Guvendiren M. Current and emerging applications of 3D printing in medicine. Biofabrication. 2017;9(2):024102. doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/aa7279 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wong KC. 3D‐printed patient‐specific applications in orthopedics. Orthop Res Rev. 2016;8:57‐66. doi: 10.2147/ORR.S99614 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zhao D, Xie W, Li T, et al. New‐designed 3D printed surgical guide promotes the accuracy of endodontic microsurgery: a study of 14 upper anterior teeth. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):15512. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-42767-x - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mobbs RJ, Coughlan M, Thompson R, Sutterlin CE, Phan K. The utility of 3D printing for surgical planning and patient‐specific implant design for complex spinal pathologies: case report. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26(4):513‐518. doi: 10.3171/2016.9.SPINE16371 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Siemiński P. Chapter 7 ‐ Introduction to fused deposition modeling. In: Pou J, Riveiro A, Davim JP, eds. Additive Manufacturing. Handbooks in Advanced Manufacturing. Elsevier; 2021:217‐275. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818411-0.00008-2 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources