This research creates a paediatric phantom using 3D printing, examining radiation doses in children's organs, highlighting the model's relevance for dosimetric studies.
Abstract The effects of radiation on children and adolescents in the paediatric age range need to be examined dosimetrically, as there is more water and fat in children's tissue than in adults, and there is more cell growing in this age period. In this study, tomographic images (CT) of the head-neck, abdomen, extremities, hands, feet and legs of an anonymous child (regardless of gender difference) between the ages of 5–9 were firstly examined and then created a 5 year agechild model. These object images were then be processed on a 3D printer and produced in anthropomorphic dimensions. Apart from the anthropomorphic head part to be determined for the child, the skeletal part of the body structure were moulded using solventless- epoxy (ρ = 1,14 g⋅cm⁻ ³) which is low cost easily available from the market and has high strength and stability when the epoxy matrix solidified by adding certain amounts of some inorganic compounds (mainly, Ca, S, P, etc.). Similarly, the skull bone was formed from a solventless-epoxy matrix with mixed homogenously, as well as the jawbone and teeth were formed from ceramic mineral powders in an epoxy matrix. Soft tissue parts were produced from solvent free epoxy resin and the lungs are made of a mixture of polyurethane foam and ultrasound gel. The production of human tissue equivalent materials suitable for different organs and tissues by using 3D printing technologies and moulding technologies, thus producing a 5–9 age child phantom in the anthropomorphic dimensions and properties. Then the radiation doses given to the child's organs in the 80–120 kVp radiological energy range was investigated by using an dose estimation and radiochromic film dosimetry techniques. The dose estimations on the produced paediatric phantom were compared with those literature values. The results are discussed in detail.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Demirel et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: