Generation of Computational 3D Models of Human Bones Based on STL Data and CAD Software Packages
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations for your very useful work in the medical field!
I have only one remark: in the paragraph "Introduction", perhaps it would have been good to present more generalities of the Catia and Creo modeling programs.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your appreciations and suggestions. Based on the reviewer’s comments an improved variant of our paper is now available.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is interesting and a great commitment is evident in the methodological work carried out. However, there are a number of changes that need to be made.
In the introduction there are few references to the state of the art and, therefore, to the results achieved by other research groups that have set themselves the same objectives. In recent years, the transition from tomographic images to the digital 3D bone model has been the subject of study by many research groups. It is therefore necessary to highlight in what the study differs, what are its strengths and the reason why it is more advantageous to use the methodology described than the others already present.
Chapter 5 (Study case) shows a series of superfluous references to the discussion which must therefore be eliminated. The article aims to show the transition from the STL model to the parametric 3D model. There are no references to preoperative simulations or prosthetic implants in the methodology. The final shape of the hip prosthesis made with Selective Laser Sintering technology in pure Titanium and the correction of the neck-shaft angle are therefore useless for the purposes of the discussion and not demonstrative.
The concluding part of the article is not particularly clear. It needs to be improved and enriched by including possible future research developments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your appreciations and valuable comments. Based on your suggestions an improved variant of our paper is now available.
Indeed, the transition from tomographic images to the digital 3D bone model has been the subject of study by many research with the aim of creating personalized models by additive manufacturing. Most of this models are not suitable as they are to direct application of a finite element analysis. In response to your queries, we introduce a new reference dated 2020 which is presenting most of the practical ideas in created 3D models of a fractured bone. The references from the article presents different methods of solving the problem but our paper brings elements of originality by proposed methodology, practical orientation and comparison between two well-known software packages. On a 3D solid model created using sketches, any type of extrusion could be achieved and elimination and Boolean operations in shorter time and without errors.
Chapter 5 was eliminated and some ideas from the case of the femoral bone was added to the Chapter 3, in this way now is clearer and more relevant. Thank you for the suggestion.
The concluding part of the article has been improved and enriched by including possible future research developments.
Reviewer 3 Report
To Authors:
Despite its not very large scope, I consider the presented article may be a significant contribution in the given area. However, I have a few questions and suggestions about the publication.
- In the introduction to the article, as well as when presenting the results, the author presents a comparison of data processing of two software. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Creo Parametric 2.0 is software released in 2012. I assume that at present there are many more current and more specialized software designed for processing of STL models as well as FE analysis.
- Is a comparison of relatively outdated software relevant?
- Is the projection of geometry in 18 sections / sketches sufficient for such a complicated model? Were the results obtained using only 18 planes interpreted?
- Regarding the FE analysis presented in Chapter 4, I think it would be beneficial for the publication if the author provided input data.
- The summary of the conclusion of the article is too brief. Interpretation of the results requires more extensive discussion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your appreciations and valuable comments. Based on your suggestions an improved variant of our paper is now available.
We tried to answer your questions by changing or adding text.
Q1 &2. Yes you are wright, the software releases are not the last ones but the functions we used are standard CAD functionalities and we think that it doesn’t influence the capabilities / originality of the described methodology. The idea was not to use specific functions or dedicated software such MIMICS but general functionalities available in the majority of commercial or even freeware CAD software. The main conclusion of the article underlines that best method to get 3D accurate and FE ready models is a hybrid techniques based on slicing the bones, building new sketches and then a parametrized model that consider the significant feature points for functional structure and the ones for anatomical appearance.
Q3. We added the following text: The number of sequences and their position relates to significant feature sections for functional structure and the ones for anatomical appearance, a geometry simplification should not alter the local topology, stress concentrators or other important geometrical details.
Q4. FE models have the same boundary conditions and loads. The presented figures are more qualitatively to underline the computational time and benefits of applying one of the proposed methods. The FE results are the starting point for a patent that proposed a multi-structure medical implant obtained by optimization of the additive manufacturing process and using of different materials. The text has been changed to include these aspects.
Q5. The concluding part of the article has been improved and enriched.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for the valuable work done. I have seen the corrections and decided to accept the publication of the article in this form.
Reviewer 3 Report
Based on the changes made to the manuscript and the authors' responses to my comments, I have no further reservations about the article.
