Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Oct 10;17(10):e0275732. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275732

Cost-effective micro-CT system for non-destructive testing of titanium 3D printed medical components

Santiago Fabian Cobos 1, Christopher James Norley 2, Steven Ingo Pollmann 2, David Wayne Holdsworth 1,2,*
Editor: Alessandra Giuliani3
PMCID: PMC9550031  PMID: 36215251

Abstract

Micro-CT imaging can be used as an effective method for non-destructive testing (NDT) of metal 3D printed parts–including titanium biomedical components fabricated using laser powder-bed-fusion (LPBF). Unfortunately, the cost of commercially available micro-CT scanners renders routine NDT for biomedical applications prohibitively expensive. This study describes the design, manufacturing, and implementation of a cost-effective scanner tailored for NDT of medium-size titanium 3D printed biomedical components. The main elements of the scanner; which include a low-energy (80 kVp) portable x-ray unit, and a low-cost lens-coupled detector; can be acquired with a budget less than $ 11000 USD. The low-cost detector system uses a rare-earth phosphor screen, lens-coupled to a dSLR camera (Nikon D800) in a front-lit tilted configuration. This strategy takes advantage of the improved light-sensitivity of modern full-frame CMOS camera sensors and minimizes source-to-detector distance to maximize x-ray flux. The imaging performance of the system is characterized using a comprehensive CT quality-assurance phantom, and two titanium 3D-printed test specimens. Results show that the cost-effective scanner can survey the porosity and cracks in titanium parts with thicknesses of up to 13 mm of solid metal. Quantitatively, the scanner produced geometrically stable reconstructions, with a voxel size of 118 μm, and noise levels under 55 HU. The cost-effective scanner was able to estimate the porosity of a 17 mm diameter titanium 3D-printed cylindrical lattice structure, with a 0.3% relative error. The proposed scanner will facilitate the implementation of titanium LPBF-printed components for biomedical applications by incorporating routine cost-effective NDT as part of the process control and validation steps of medical-device quality-management systems. By reducing the cost of the x-ray detector and shielding, the scan cost will be commensurate with the overall cost of the validated component.

I. Introduction

Industrial computed tomography, for the purpose of non-destructive testing (NDT) of metal components, has developed to a mature technology of “turn-key” systems; this evolution has been thoroughly described in the literature [1, 2]. CT systems have naturally developed to fit applications that require resolution of features as small as 10 μm [1]. These micro resolutions are typical of industrial computed tomography scanners, which have strived to achieve high-resolution instrumentation through dense metal structures. Bench-top micro-CT scanners are widely used for (NDT) of parts in the automotive, aerospace, pharmaceutical, and medical industries [35]. In particular, micro-CT based NDT has been recently introduced as a volumetric measurement tool for additive manufacturing (AM) [6].

The main components of these scanners are the x-ray source, the x-ray detector, and a rotary stage that are all enclosed in an x-ray shielded cabinet [2, 7]. With prices ranging from 100,000 to over 1 million USD dollars, industrial micro-CT scanners for NDT are typically equipped with high-energy (160–450 kVp) x-ray tubes that require heavy x-ray shielding, additional hardware (e.g., power generators or cooling systems), and robust infrastructure to operate safely. For these high-energy systems, x-ray filtration is employed to modify the x-ray spectra, in order to scan samples made of various materials with a wide range of radiopacity (i.e., plastics, ceramics, and metals). Additionally, these scanners are equipped with large-area digital flat-panel x-ray detectors that allow for scanning of medium-to-large sized objects, which are characteristic of the automotive and aerospace industry [24, 8]. For applications where the cost of analysis must be commensurate with the cost of the part, these NDT tools become prohibitively expensive for routine use [8]. For example, in the medical industry, the cost of scanning a $300 part should not exceed more than approximately 10% of its cost, or $30.

Scanning costs can be reduced using micro-CT scanners designed with task-specific, x-ray tube and detector combinations [3]. For example, de Oliveira et al. [9] have described a low-cost (~ $35,000) scanner for small-sized specimens (< 100 mm) using a low-energy, x-ray tube in a fan-beam configuration, and an x-ray detector made in-house comprised of a series of commercial photodiode arrays. Their low-cost detector had only one row of 512 (0.3 x 0.6 mm) photodiodes, which constrained the reconstruction volume of the scanner to a single slice. To avoid this limitation, industrial and commercially available micro-CT scanners typically use a cone-beam geometry and two-dimensional flat-panel detectors which can be very expensive. Dramatically reducing the cost of a medium-sized high-definition detector is a very effective strategy for reducing the overall system cost and thus making routine NDT of medical components feasible.

Micro-CT is an excellent NDT tool to investigate the internal integrity (e.g., porosity and cracks) of a part, as well as its dimensional accuracy [10]. It should be emphasized that routine non-destructive testing of medical components should not have the objective of producing volumetric data for high-precision metrology of the parts, but rather used for an assessment of critical defects with the potential of affecting the mechanical properties of the component [11]. This assessment should include the size, location, and distribution of the defects [6, 12]. In the case of titanium medical components, the critical defect size might be 0.5 mm, requiring a spatial resolution for the CT volume of around 0.2 mm in order to visualize any mechanically critical defects [11, 12]. Additionally, the scan must be completed as fast as possible, but must produce sufficient image quality to identify and measure what is required [5]. This can be achieved through the use of flat-panel detectors with sufficiently-small pixel pitch, or the use of geometric magnification of the sample. Lens-coupled detector systems have been investigated in the past as an alternative, but have lacked the necessary light sensitivity or field-of-view, as they have been limited to small-scale imaging applications [1316]. Recent advancements in full-frame CMOS imaging technology have shown promise in reaching the light sensitivity, field-of-view size, and spatial resolution required for computed tomography [17]. Panna et al. [18] have demonstrated the use of consumer-grade, digital cameras that are lens-coupled to x-ray phosphor screens as a viable way of constructing high-definition medium-sized x-ray detectors. They also demonstrated that by placing the digital camera in front of the phosphor screen, in a front-lit tilted configuration, these lens-coupled detectors are less susceptible to diffusion and attenuation of light in the phosphor, and are able to perform as well as modern digital flat-panel detectors.

This study describes the first implementation of a low-energy (80 kVp) micro-CT system equipped with a medium-sized front-lit lens-coupled detector, as a cost-effective alternative for NDT of medium-sized medical components such as: cranial plates, interbody fusion devices, acetabular cups, maxillofacial implants, customized fixation plates, cervical cages, etc. The necessary hardware and software required to acquire high-quality micro-CT data is described, and the performance of the scanner is characterized using a comprehensive quality assurance phantom [19]. Finally, the use of this novel device to inspect two titanium 3D-printed test objects is described–one to evaluate the performance of the system while imaging highly-porous lattice structures, and the other to characterize x-ray penetration limits in this commonly-used medical-grade alloy.

II. Methods

A. System geometry description

The basic components of a micro-CT scanner are an x-ray tube, a rotational stage, and an x-ray detector. These components in the low-cost CT system were enclosed in a frame constructed using off-the-shelf 20 x 20 mm aluminum extrusion profiles and connectors. This 1040 x 500 x 540 mm enclosure included opaque non-reflective panels that create a light-tight environment inside the frame, preventing any external light from interfering with the lens-coupled detector system. All the hardware, including a portable x-ray source, could be packaged into a large suitcase with an estimated maximum weight of 100 kg. One side of the frame lacked a solid panel, but instead had an opaque, non-reflective fabric to facilitate access to the rotary stage for specimen loading. The enclosure and its internal components were placed inside a lead-shielded procedure room that prevented operator exposure to x-ray radiation.

Fig 1 describes the schematics of the frame and the internal components of the low-cost, micro-CT system. The configuration of the x-ray source, phosphor screen, and the camera-lens assembly is similar to the tilted-screen front-lit configuration described by Panna et al. [18] with the addition of a 2 mm thick lead plate placed in between the rotary stage and the camera to prevent direct interactions between the camera CMOS sensor and any primary or scattered x-rays. The camera-lens assembly was mounted to the frame with a sliding gantry plate that allowed camera-to-screen adjustments. The phosphor screen was secured to one end of the C-beam using an acrylic sheet. Underneath the acrylic sheet, a custom 3D-printed hinge joint allowed for the adjustment of the phosphor-screen tilt. All of the other joints and connectors allowed partial disassembly of the system, as well as adjustments to various geometric parameters (source-to-object distance (SOD), object-to-detector distance (ODD), detector-screen tilt angle, and camera-to-screen distance) making the design of the low-cost micro-CT system versatile, portable, flexible, and easily upgradable.

Fig 1. Geometry of the micro-CT system.

Fig 1

(a) Top view depicting the arrangement of the internal components of the system: x-ray source, rotary stage, phosphor detector screen, detector-screen tilt angle (DSTA), lead plate, camera, lens, source-to-object distance (SOD), and object-to-detector distance (ODD). The orange dotted-lines represent the trajectory of the polychromatic, cone-shaped, x-ray beam. (b) Perspective view of the system showing the arrangement of the various 20 x 20 mm aluminum extrusion profiles. One of the opaque panels was removed from the 3D rendering to allow visualization of the internal components.

B. Internal components and experimental setup

The schematic in Fig 1, shows the configuration of the proposed system. The system is designed to include a portable x-ray source with a 33 μm focal spot capable of running at a maximum tube potential of 80 kVp and a maximum current of 0.5 mA (Sourceblock SR-80-500). The source is placed in a close-assembly (i.e., source-to-detector distance (SDD) of approximately 300 mm) to maximize x-ray flux at the detector plane. Unfortunately, due to regulatory restrictions and reduced research capacity caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the researchers were unable to operate that x-ray source and instead used a general-purpose ceiling-mounted x-ray source (Proteus XR/a, GE Medical Systems). The SDD for this configuration was 600 mm and images were captured at 80 kVp and 10 mA. Fig 2 shows the experimental setup using the general-purpose ceiling-mounted x-ray source. Note that the x-ray protocol used with the general-purpose x-ray source was adapted to match the exposure levels that could be achieved with the proposed portable x-ray source. Table 1 summarizes the differences between the two x-ray units and the exposure matching protocol settings.

Fig 2. Experimental setup using the general-purpose x-ray source.

Fig 2

Note that the rotary stage is not visible as it is hidden behind the lead plate. The source-to-detector distance (SDD) was 600 mm.

Table 1. X-ray source comparisons and exposure-level matching, x-ray protocols.

Portable x-ray Unit General Purpose x-ray Unit
Source-Ray/SR-80-500 GE Medical Systems/Proteus XR/a
Unit Protocol Unit Protocol
x-ray tube-potential (kVp) 35–80 80 40–150 80
x-ray tube-current (mA) 0.5 0.5 10–400 10
Focal spot size (mm) 0.033 0.033 0.6 0.6
Source-to-detector distance (mm) - 300 - 600
Dose-rate* (R/h) - 344 - 1718
Exposure time (s) - 4 - 0.8
Tube-current exposure-time product (mAs) - 2 - 8

*Dose-rates were calculated using Rad Pro Calculator version 3.26

The rotational stage for the system was fabricated in-house and operated under a closed-loop stepper-motor control with < 5 μm precision. For each scan, 360 images were acquired at 1° angular increments. The stage was placed 300 mm from the x-ray source (source-to-object distance, SOD) and 300 mm from the phosphor screen central axis (object-to-detector distance, ODD). The magnification factor (M) of the system was calculated to be:

M=SDDSOD=600mm300mm=0.5 (1)

The x-ray detector was comprised of a 180 x 240 mm Gd2O2S: Tb phosphor screen (Lanex Min-R 2000, Eastman Kodak Company), a fast high-quality lens (35 mm, f1.4 prime Nikkor), and a full-frame dSLR camera (Nikon D800). The camera-to-screen distance was set to 230 mm and the CMOS sensor focus was visually optimized prior data acquisition. Images were captured with the widest aperture setting (focal ratio of f/1.4) in order to maximize light collection. The camera exposure time was set to 4 s to match the exposure time required when using the proposed SR-800-500 x-ray source. This ensured that the appropriate amount of electronic noise (i.e., dark-field) was included during data acquisition and subsequent CT reconstruction. Finally, ISO sensitivity was set to 1600 ISO to cover the full dynamic range (14 bits) of the Nikon D800 camera.

Several private companies selling micro-CT, NDT devices were surveyed and reported scanner prices ranging from $ 260,000 for a small field-of-view scanner to over $ 750,000 for a large field-of-view scanner. Table 2 details the costs of all the off-the-shelf components of the proposed low-cost scanner. Due to the use of a relatively low-energy source (80 kVp), the calculated shielding requirements for routine use of the proposed system were significantly lower than other scanners operating at higher energies. For instance, reduction of the radiation measurements caused by primary x-rays behind the phosphor screen to the required 0.005 mSv/h can be achieved using an 8.4 mm lead plate. Additional shielding will be required to enclose the portable x-ray source, as the Sourceblock SR-80-500 unit is sold without x-ray protection. Fortunately, lead-based x-ray protection is not costly, unless its weight impacts other aspects of the design of the CT scanner.

Table 2. Summary of the estimated costs for the main components of the low-cost CT scanner–June 2021.

Component Cost (USD)
Sourceblock SR-80-500 (portable x-ray unit) $ 4495
Nikon D800 dSLR camera $ 3000
Nikkor 35 mm f/1.4 lens $ 1100
Phosphor screen $ 30
Rotary stage and frame $ 600
X-ray shielding $ 1500
Total costs: $ 10725

C. Geometric calibration and CT reconstruction

For these experiments, the Nikon D800 captured RAW 6208 x 4924 pixels 14-bit dynamic range images in 5:4 mode (30 by 24 mm sensor area). These images contained the pixel-by-pixel intensity values arranged in a 2 by 2 pixel Bayer mask (one red, two green, and one blue). The intensity values of each group of four pixels were averaged to generate a 3104 x 2462 image. Fig 3 shows an overview of the image acquisition and post-processing steps required prior to CT reconstruction.

Fig 3. Summary of image processing steps required between projection data acquisition and CT reconstruction.

Fig 3

The image quality of any CT reconstruction depends on precise calibration of the imaging system. If the object space is not mapped correctly with the projection data, the reconstructions will have reduced spatial resolution, as well as image artefacts [20]. In the proposed system, this could be caused mainly by the geometric distortion of the object due to the tilted configuration of the phosphor, and by source-detector alignment errors. Fortunately, both geometric distortion and source-detector alignment are tractable problems.

Lens and perspective geometrical-distortion corrections are routinely implemented in photogrammetry and industrial metrology [21]. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that similar corrections can be applied in radiography to increase spatial resolution using two orthogonal views of a tilted x-ray detector [22]. For this study, geometric correction involved capturing a projection image of a precisely fabricated 80 x 80 mm grid containing 17 rows by 17 columns of 0.5 mm diameter high-contrast metal marker beads. The centroid of each marker bead was determined to subpixel accuracy and used to correct the image based on the a priori knowledge about the Cartesian grid [23]. Source and detector alignment was estimated using a ring-shaped high-contrast object that was placed 80 mm from the plane of the Cartesian grid toward the x-ray source [24]. Proper alignment of this ring and the central marker of the grid was visually confirmed before data acquisition (Fig 4). The accuracy of the correction was evaluated, primarily, by imaging a cylindrical phantom with a series of high-contrast metal beads placed on the outer surface of the cylinder parallel to its longitudinal axis. The rotational path of the centroid of each marker was compared to their expected elliptical trajectory in one full rotation of the rotational stage. Additionally, the roundness scores of the ring-shaped marker were calculated according to Eq (2) and provided an additional two-dimensional evaluation of the geometric correction.

Fig 4. Assessment of geometric distortion correction resulting from the tilted-detector configuration.

Fig 4

(a) shows the un-corrected raw data of the Cartesian calibration grid. (b) corrected image of the Cartesian calibration grid.

roundness(R)=4×areaπ×majoraxis2 (2)

For each data set, 360 projection images were acquired to perform a micro-CT reconstruction with a widely-employed Feldkamp, Davis and Kress (FDK) filtered-backprojection algorithm. Beam-hardening correction, following the protocol described by Edey et al., was applied for the titanium specimens only. For all reconstructions, CT numbers were linearly re-scaled into Hounsfield (HU) units. The voxel spacing of the original reconstruction matrix was 39.3 x 39.3 x 39.3μm. Following a quantitative assessment of the spatial resolution of the system, described below, all reconstructions were spatially averaged to 118 x 118 x 118 μm to improve the signal-to-noise characteristics of the data.

D. Phantoms

a. Quality assurance phantom

Fig 5 shows the three phantoms used in this study. The quantitative performance of the system was evaluated using a comprehensive micro-CT quality-assurance phantom (Fig 5A) designed and described by Du et al. [19]. The different sections of the QA phantom were used to assess spatial resolution, geometric accuracy, CT number accuracy, linearity, uniformity, and noise.

Fig 5. Physical appearance of the imaged phantoms for this study.

Fig 5

(a) comprehensive quality assurance CT phantom, (b) porous, gyroid-based, cylindrical, titanium-alloy (Ti6Al4V) phantom, and (c) titanium-alloy (Ti6Al4V) resolution phantom.

b. Porous scaffold phantom

To assess the capability of the system to visualize internal voids in a commonly-used medical-grade alloy, two titanium (Ti6Al4V ELI-0406, Renishaw plc, United Kingdom, particle size 15–45 μm) test specimens were manufactured with a metal 3D printer (AM400, Renishaw plc, Wotton-under-Edge, United Kingdom) at the Additive Design in Surgical Solutions facility (ADEISS, London, Canada). The first titanium test specimen (Figs 5B and 6) was a porous cylindrical scaffold 17 mm in diameter and 40 mm in length. The internal porosity of the scaffold was designed in Blender (Version 2.79, blender.org, Amsterdam, Netherlands) using a 6 mm3 sheet-based gyroid unit cell. The prescribed porosity of the porous scaffold was 79.68% and was achieved by modifying the wall thickness of the gyroid unit to 0.4 mm (Fig 6C and 6D).

Fig 6. Computer-aided design (CAD) of the porous gyroid-based cylindrical titanium-alloy (Ti6Al4V) scaffold.

Fig 6

(a) perspective view of 3D rendering of the CAD. (b) Trans-coronal synthetic slice of the porous cylinder CAD. (c) Trans-sagittal synthetic slice of the porous cylinder CAD. (d) Transaxial synthetic slice of the porous cylinder CAD. (b),(c), and (d) are color coded to depict the titanium-alloy (yellow) and internal porosity (red) regions of the scaffold.

c. Titanium resolution phantom

The second titanium test specimen (Figs 5C and 7) was a truncated cone 17 mm high with a 25 mm diameter base, and a 10 mm diameter top. Incorporated into the design were a series of deliberate internal cavities or voids which, in cross-sectional view, were seen as: a set of five bar patterns (formed from alternating regions of titanium and air with nominal spacing varying from 1.66 to 10 lp/mm); a set of five circular air cavities with nominal diameters varying from 0.025 to 0.3 mm; and a set of five rectangular air cavities 3 mm wide with varying nominal thicknesses from 0.025 to 0.3 mm. These internal cavities extended from the top of the truncated cone to the base along the phantom’s longitudinal axis. The top and the base of the truncated cone were two, 1 mm thick, disk-shaped regions. Fig 7 shows a detailed schematic of this titanium resolution phantom that was designed to assess the ability of the low-cost micro-CT system to resolve features of various sizes inside a solid object as the cumulative x-ray path length across the material increases. The x-ray path length increases as the diameter of the cross-sectional area of the cone increases towards the base of the phantom.

Fig 7. Computer-aided design (CAD) of the resolution titanium-alloy (Ti6Al4V) phantom.

Fig 7

(a) translucent perspective view of 3D rendering of the phantom’s CAD. (b) Trans-coronal synthetic slice of the phantom’s CAD. (c) Trans-sagittal synthetic slice of the phantom’s CAD depicting details of the internal voids. The bar patterns are described in lp mm-1 all the other nominal measurements are shown in mm (d) Transaxial synthetic slice of the phantom’s CAD. Note that the labelled measurements represent the prescribed nominal values; these values may not be achieved during the manufacturing of the part.

This titanium resolution phantom was imaged using an advanced commercially available micro-CT scanner (Zeiss Xradia 410 Versa, Germany) at an ISO 17025:2017 certified facility (Surface Science Western, London, Canada). The scanning parameters were as follows: the phantom was rotated and scanned at 0.225˚ increments. After each rotational stage, the phantom was imaged twice. The X-ray unit operated at 150 kV and 10 W power with an exposure time of 12 s. The 1601 projection images were reconstructed with a voxel size of 12.68 μm. This Zeiss Xradia scan of the resolution phantom was performed to characterize the true size of the phantom’s internal voids, post-manufacturing, and to evaluate their geometry from top to bottom.

E. Data analysis

The spatial resolution of the micro-CT scanner was quantitatively measured over a range of spatial frequencies, using two different methods to calculate the MTF of the system. The first method used the slanted-edge plate of the QA phantom and the algorithm described by Judy [25]. The second method, described by Anam et al. [26], used a cross-sectional reconstruction of a 0.1 mm diameter copper wire that was wrapped around one of the plates of the QA phantom. The spatial resolution was qualitatively evaluated using a different plate of the QA phantom that included four spiral coils fabricated with alternating aluminum and Mylar sheets with various thicknesses of 150, 200, 300, and 500 μm–corresponding to 3.3, 2.5, 1.6, and 1 lp/mm, respectively. Using Droege’s method [27], the modulation parameter was calculated using the standard deviation of pixel values in a region-of-interest (ROI) within the coils. A set of these modulation parameters were useful to verify the MTF calculation for the proposed system.

Geometric accuracy was determined using another plate within the QA phantom containing five beads placed at precisely known locations. The 3D sub-voxel weighted centroid of each bead was calculated using standard methods and the distances from each centroid to that of all the other neighboring beads were measured in voxels. The known distances between beads were used to calculate the true in-plane voxel size of the reconstructions.

The CT number evaluation and linearity of the system were measured using two other plates of the QA phantom designed for these purposes. The CT number of each of the eight materials was reported by measuring the mean grey-scale intensity in Hounsfield units (HU) within a 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 mm ROI placed in the center of each material sample. Linearity was determined by vials of iodinated contrast agent (Omnipaque 300, GE Healthcare, Oakville, ON), with concentrations varying from 0.9375 to 30 mg ml-1. A linear-regression analysis was used to determine the relationship between the signal intensity and iodine concentration.

The uniformity of the system was qualitatively evaluated using the uniformity plate of the QA phantom and a radial signal profile taken through the center of a homogeneous region covering the central reconstructed slice. Ten slices were averaged to improve the noise characteristics of the data and allow proper visualization of any non-uniformities. This plate was also used to quantitatively report uniformity and noise using four ROIs located at the periphery of the plate as well as one ROI located in the center. The uniformity percent and the average of the measured standard deviations for each ROI is reported.

An ROI of the titanium porous scaffold was segmented from the beam-hardening-corrected reconstruction using Dragonfly software, version 2020.2 (Object Research Systems Inc, Montreal, Canada) and a standard full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) threshold in order to determine the volume of titanium excluding the surrounding air. The centroid of each slice, perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the sample, was used to draw a circular mask fitting the bounding box of the titanium ROI. These circular masks were combined to generate a cylindrical ROI that represented 100% of the volume of the titanium scaffold with the surrounding air excluded. The percentage porosity of the reconstructed sample was then calculated using:

CTscaffoldporosity=(1titaniumROIvolumecylindricalROIvolume)×100 (3)

This CT-derived porosity fraction was compared with the gravimetrically-determined, porosity fraction of the 3D printed sample, which was determined by weighing the printed scaffold using a high-precision scale (BP3100P, Sartorius, Göttingen, Germany, 0.01 g accuracy) and comparing it with the mass of a solid titanium cylinder.

The x-ray path-length limit for titanium was measured using the titanium resolution phantom. This limit was determined by measuring the diameter of the phantom at the height of the cone where its internal features–the centrally located voids–were no longer visible in a lateral cross-sectional view. The phantom was also used to qualitatively evaluate the spatial resolution of the system when imaging highly radio-opaque materials.

III. Results

A. Geometric correction

The mean deviation from the ideal trajectory was measured (1.14 ± 1.34 pixels) showing that the correction rendered trajectories with deviations within the spatial resolution of the detector–which was mainly limited by penumbral blur of the focal-spot (~ 0.3 mm). Fig 8 shows a projection image of the phantom as well as the measured and expected elliptical trajectories of each marker.

Fig 8. Results of geometric calibration evaluation using a cylindrical phantom with four radiopaque marker beads.

Fig 8

(a) x-ray projection radiograph of the phantom; (b) uncorrected and corrected elliptical trajectories prescribed by the phantom’s markers over the course of one full rotation of the rotary stage. (c) close-up of uncorrected and corrected elliptical trajectories of the top-most marker bead. The corrected position of the markers aligns with the ideal trajectory calculated using a sinusoidal best fit.

B. Imaging characteristics of the system

a. Spatial resolution

The spatial resolution of the system was quantitatively evaluated by calculating the pre-sampled MTF of the system using the reconstructed image of the slanted-edge plate of the QA phantom (Fig 9A). The resolution limit at the 10% level was reached at 2.12 line pairs per mm, which corresponds to a spatial resolution of 235 μm. The same results were observed and confirmed when calculating the MTF of the system using the wire-based methodology (Fig 10).

Fig 9. Evaluation of spatial resolution of the cost-efficient CT scanner.

Fig 9

(a) a single reconstructed transaxial-slice CT image of the slanted-edge plate of the CT quality assurance phantom. (b) reconstructed transaxial-slice CT image of the resolution coil plate of the CT quality assurance phantom illustrating the qualitative display of resolution coils.

Fig 10. Modulation transfer function (MTF) of the cost-effective CT scanner measured from the slanted-edge plate, the resolution coil plate, and the copper wire of the CT quality assurance phantom.

Fig 10

The 10% MTF level was reached at 2.12 mm-1, corresponding to a spatial resolution of 235 μm.

Qualitatively, it was observed that only the 300 μm and the 500 μm coil patterns were resolved, as they represented spatial frequencies of 2.5 and 3.3 line pairs per mm respectively (Fig 9B). The MTF estimates using the standard deviation of ROIs inside the coil patterns closely agreed with the other quantitative MTF calculation methods (Fig 10).

b. Geometric accuracy

The average, in-plane, voxel spacing of the CT reconstructions (118.39±0.20 μm) was calculated by dividing the known distance between beads in the geometric accuracy plate of the QA phantom (Fig 11) by the measured inter-bead distance in voxels. Table 3 shows the sub-voxel Euclidean distances between the centroids of all five beads of the geometric-accuracy plate of the QA phantom. The mean sub-voxel physical distances for all three known inter-bead configurations (34.98±0.06, 24.74±0.01, and 49.47±0.03 mm) were 295.63±0.46, 209.05±0.46, and 418.10±0.16 voxels, respectively. The small standard deviation between the measured Euclidian distances shows the high geometric accuracy of the CT reconstructions achieved by the low-cost CT system.

Fig 11. Geometric-accuracy plate.

Fig 11

(a) reconstructed transaxial-slice CT image of the geometric-accuracy plate of the CT quality assurance phantom with four beads located at the periphery and 34.98 ±0.06 mm apart and one central bead at a distance of 24.74 ±0.01 mm from the other four. (b) all possible nominal versus CT calculated distances between beads depicting error bars that represent the 95% confidence interval.

Table 3. Euclidean distances, in mm, between the centroids of all five beads of the geometric accuracy plate of the CT quality assurance phantom.
Central bead Periphery 1 Periphery 2 Periphery 3 Periphery 4
Central bead 0 24.74 24.83 24.74 24.68
Periphery 1 24.74 0 34.99 49.48 35.00
Periphery 2 24.83 34.99 0 35.09 49.52
Periphery 3 24.74 49.48 35.09 0 34.92
Periphery 4 24.68 35.00 49.52 34.92 0

c. Linearity

Linearity (p < 0.001) was calculated using the measured intensity values of ROIs placed within vials filled with various concentrations of iodine (Fig 12A). Fig 13 shows the relationship between signal intensity (S) and iodine concentration (C), as well as the result of a linear regression between these variables S = 54.62 (mg ml-1) x C + 26.4 (HU), where C is the iodine concentration in mg ml-1 (R2 = 0.9998). The y-intercept 26.4 HU was not significantly different than zero meaning that the system CT number was well calibrated.

Fig 12.

Fig 12

Reconstructed transaxial-slice CT images of the linearity plate (a) with air, water, and various concentrations of iodine shown in mg ml-1; and the CT number evaluation plate (b) of the CT quality assurance phantom.

Fig 13. Plot of measured CT number within ROIs placed in each iodine vial versus known iodine concentration within the linearity plate of the CT quality assurance phantom.

Fig 13

A significant linear correlation is seen between CT number in HU and iodine concentration in mg ml-1.

d. Uniformity and noise

Quantitatively, the difference in CT numbers between the periphery of the QA phantom and the center was 1.73% (~ 18 HU). Qualitatively, the uniformity of the system was assessed with the radial signal profiles taken through the center of the uniformity plate of the QA phantom (Fig 14B). Noise (54.48±4.6 HU) was characterized using the average standard deviation of the five ROIs used for the uniformity analysis. Noise increased up to 82 HU for ROIs within materials with higher attenuation coefficients such as the highest-concentration (30 mg ml-1) iodine solution of the linearity plate. This is a good indicative that the system is dominated by photon noise.

Fig 14.

Fig 14

(a) Reconstructed transaxial-slice CT image of the uniformity plate of the CT quality assurance phantom. (b) Radial signal profile taken through the center of the uniformity plate as illustrated by the white dotted-line in (a).

C. Titanium metal-alloy (Ti6Al4V) phantoms

a. Porous gyroid-based scaffold

As shown in Fig 15A, the low-cost CT system produced a CT reconstruction of the 17 x 40 mm titanium-alloy porous cylinder that closely matched the prescribed CAD design. Inspection of the reconstructed slices clearly shows the gyroid-based internal structure of the scaffold allowing full interrogation of the reconstructed volume (Fig 15B, 15D–15F). Fig 15C shows how the threshold value was determined in order to segment the titanium ROI using the FWHM method. The total porosity of the construct (84.26%) was calculated by subtracting the volume of the titanium ROI (1429.95 mm3) from the volume of the bounding, cylindrical ROI (9081.95 mm3). The outline of the cylindrical ROI corresponding to 100% of the volume of the part is shown in Fig 15F.

Fig 15. CT reconstruction of the porous gyroid-based cylindrical titanium-alloy (Ti6Al4V) scaffold using the cost-effective CT scanner.

Fig 15

(a) perspective view of volumetric rendering using the FWHM threshold used to segment titanium. (b) Trans-coronal slice CT reconstruction of the porous cylinder. (c) Signal profile across a wall of the porous cylinder used to determine the FWHM threshold for segmentation. (d) Trans-sagittal slice CT reconstruction of the porous cylinder. (e) Transaxial slice CT reconstruction of the porous cylinder and line profile used for (c). (f) close-up version of (e) illustrating boundaries between the titanium and air ROIs used to measure the porosity of the porous, cylindrical, titanium scaffold.

The porosity of the gyroid-based titanium-alloy scaffold was also estimated using the mass of a solid cylinder (17 x 40 mm) that was printed at the same time as the scaffold. The mass of the solid cylinder was found to be 38.86 g and the mass of the porous scaffold 6.26 g, leading to a calculated porosity of:

porosity%=(1scaffoldmasssolidmass)×100=(16.26g38.86g)×100=83.89%

b. Titanium-alloy resolution phantom

Results from 3D micro-CT analysis with the high-energy commercial system (Zeiss Xradia 410 Versa) showed that the nominal dimensions of the internal defects were, on average, 170 μm less than the as-built dimensions. Specifically, the 25, 50, 100, 150, 300 μm defects were measured as 190, 220, 270, 320, and 480 μm, respectively. This discrepancy is likely related to the beam-spot compensation algorithm of the commercial 3D metal printer. The high-energy scan data also confirmed that the internal defects were fabricated consistently throughout the phantom, from the top to bottom slices. Fig 16 shows the low-cost CT reconstruction of the conical titanium-alloy resolution phantom. Fig 16B and 16D show photon starvation artifacts starting around the 13 mm diameter mark and worsening at greater diameters. This demonstrated that some medical components would need to be carefully loaded into the scanner’s rotational stage to ensure that x-ray paths travel across the object with the smallest possible path-length across metal. Below this level, most of the internal features of the phantom were still detected, with the exception of the cylindrical voids with CT measured diameters smaller than 0.25 mm, and the nominal 10 lp/mm bar patterns. Fig 16C and 16E show that defects larger than 0.5 mm would be characterizable using the proposed CT system. Fig 16F demonstrates that as the diameter of metal increases, noise levels in the reconstructed image increase, as well reducing the conspicuity of the internal voids.

Fig 16. Beam-hardening corrected CT reconstruction of the titanium-alloy resolution phantom using the cost-effective CT scanner.

Fig 16

(a) Volumetric rendering of the phantom with the top cap clipped to reveal the internal-void features of the resolution phantom. (b) Transcoronal slice of the resolution phantom showing the relative position of the clipping plane for (a), (c) and (e). (c) Close-up of (e) illustrating the internal features of the phantom at the level of the clipping plane where the outer diameter of the object is 10 mm. Note that the CT-measured true dimensions are labelled in parenthesis after the nominal dimensions of the internal voids. (d) Transsagittal slice of the resolution phantom showing the level where the resolution limit was reached. (e) Transaxial slice of the resolution phantom showing details of the internal features of the phantom at the level of the clipping plane labelled in (b). (f) Transaxial slice at the level of the resolution limit where the external diameter of the phantom was 13 mm. At diameters greater than this, internal-void features are difficult to distinguish and photon starvation artifacts start to dominate.

IV. Discussion

Non-destructive testing of porous titanium-alloy 3D-printed parts is possible using a low-cost micro-CT scanner fabricated with off-the-shelf components. The cost-effectiveness of the proposed system takes advantage of some of the design constrains characteristic of most medical devices–which include high-porosity, small size, and relatively-low x-ray attenuating materials. This strategy demonstrated that routine NDT of titanium 3D-printed medium-sized highly-porous medical components is feasible using the proposed cost-effective CT system.

This novel CT system includes a low-cost lens-coupled x-ray detector comprised of a consumer-grade dSLR camera and a phosphor screen. The consumer grade dSLR camera and an appropriately chosen lens exploit the front-lit configuration described by Panna et al. [18], where the light emitted by the phosphor is more effectively captured than in other configurations [13, 14, 17, 18, 28]. Other advantages of this configuration include: (1) a reduced optical diffusion of the captured light as it does not need to pass through the phosphor to be detected (i.e., reduced light scattering within the phosphor); (2) improved spatial resolution in the trans-axial plane due to the tilted configuration of the phosphor screen; (3) no bright-pixels in the captured images as the camera sensor can be positioned out of the direct x-ray beam path and properly shielded; and (4) a significant reduction in cost compared to similar-sized, digital, flat-panel detectors.

For this study, effective spatial resolution (0.235 mm) was mainly limited by penumbral blur due to the focal-spot size (~ 0.3 mm), this could be easily resolved by using an x-ray source with a smaller focal-spot. For instance, if an x-ray source like the proposed Sourceblock SR-80-500 were to be used, then the focal-spot blur will be ten times lower. This will take better advantage of the high resolution of the camera, lens, and the phosphor screen. Further improvements in spatial resolution could be achieved by removing the one red, two green, and one blue (RGGB) Bayer filter included in the Nikon D800 dSLR camera, as in this implementation only the green channels used the full 14-bit dynamic range of the camera’s detector. This modification could also improve the light sensitivity of the detector, as the added filters reduce the quantum efficiency of the underlying pixels. The selection of a color-camera was based on cost and availability considerations, as similar true black and white cameras are more expensive and difficult to source.

Although the projection images in this study captured a field-of-view covering the full area of the (180 by 240 mm) phosphor screen, both the detector-to-source distance and the object-to-detector distance could be adapted for smaller objects. This will increase the intensity of the captured light requiring lower ISO sensitivity values to cover the full dynamic range of the CMOS detector. Lower ISO values are desirable as signal-to-noise will be reduced by half for each ISO speed setting or “f-stop”. Furthermore, the camera could be set to capture smaller regions of the CMOS detector. For example, the Nikon D800 has a 24 by 16 mm DX mode, which could reduce read-out and post-processing times.

Changes in the geometry of the system, to accommodate various specimen sizes, or following assembly of the system, will require the acquisition of new geometric calibration images. This process was not time-consuming, except for the manual segmentation of the markers of the calibration grid. A more sophisticated and automated segmentation algorithm would be recommended in case of regular modifications to the geometry of the system. Another alternative would be to acquire calibration images for a set of pre-calibrated geometries using additional repositioning hardware. The geometric accuracy of the reconstructions in this study shows that the proposed geometric calibration strategy was successful. Future work includes the manufacturing of a calibration grid with a larger coverage of the phosphor screen. In such case, geometric calibration might be more challenging at the edges of the full-frame image, as non-linear lens aberrations are more pronounced in this area of the image–especially when using large lens aperture settings [16].

Scan time is another important aspect to consider for the cost-effectiveness of routine NDT. Time-consuming NDT might cause prohibitively long delays in some clinical applications or significantly increase the cost per scan [5]. In this study, the total scan time per projection image was 7.5 seconds (i.e., 45 minutes for 360 projection images). From these 7.5 seconds, 4 s were utilized for data acquisition, and 3.5 s were required for data transfer from the Nikon camera to the computer over USB 3.0. The reconstructions achieved by the proposed low-cost scanner suggest that acceptable image quality can be achieved despite the number of projections being lower than the suggested by the strict Nyquist criterion. A reduced number of projections has been suggested in the literature as one of the most effective strategies to reduce scan time, while maintaining image quality [5].

The proposed low-cost micro-CT scanner closely matched the geometric accuracy, noise, uniformity, and linearity of commercially available micro-CT scanners [19]. Furthermore, the proposed system may be able to outperform scanners that use fiber-optic tapered detector technologies, as these are often more susceptible to CT ring artifacts. Ring artifacts are caused by non-linear response of the x-ray detector elements (i.e., fixed-pattern noise), which can be caused by severe defects of the detector itself, or the readout electronics [29]. In the implemented lens-coupled detector system, fixed-pattern noise is more likely to arise from discontinuities or defects in the surface of the phosphor screen and less likely to be present at the level of the camera’s sensor. This is due to the high degree of quality control in the commercial digital-photography industry, where detectors with many critical defects are unlikely to be sold.

Additive manufacturing has gained popularity in the medical and dental sectors thanks to its ability to produce highly-porous, but strong, medical components. The proposed system has demonstrated the capability to interrogate titanium-alloy objects up to a total x-ray path length through titanium of 13 mm. This was shown by the accurate volumetric representation of a 17 mm diameter gyroid-based 80% porous scaffold. The characterization of internal-voids in the titanium resolution phantom matched the expected performance with a voxel resolution of 118 μm. Fig 16 shows the clear identification of all defects above 270 μm. These detected defects were smaller than the suggested 0.5 mm size for mechanically critical cracks or voids, that–if unnoticed–could seriously compromise the integrity of the 3D printed part. Note that 3D printed parts can also be susceptible to cross-contamination with other metals or metal oxides during fabrication. The proposed system was limited to the identification of internal defects only and it is not anticipated to aid in the identification of such cross-contaminants.

Although the main objective of this study was to demonstrate that the proposed system could be used for routine NDT of titanium-alloy 3D-printed parts its flexibility, portability, and versatility can be exploited in other applications. For example, the system could be used for volumetric imaging of archaeological samples in remote sites. In such cases, the included, full-frame, dSLR camera could also be used independently for sample documentation or 3D photogrammetry. Space exploration missions could also exploit this proposed strategy, which, again, will allow the included camera to be employed in a variety of tasks.

The low-cost scanner in this study was safely operated inside an adequately shielded room. If this setup is not feasible, the frame of the scanner will need to be fully covered using proper shielding (e.g., lead panels). The additional cost of the required shielding will not significantly impact the final cost of the scanner. However, if the scanner were to be used in remote sites, the required shielding might interfere with the transportation of the equipment and therefore the scanner might not be safe to operate under normal conditions. A solution for this scenario will be to define a designated controlled area where no personnel might be present. Similar strategies are often implemented in industrial, temporary sites or large-animal, veterinary radiography. Wireless-interlock technology could be used to define a perimeter at the boundary of the designated controlled area to avoid accidental exposure to ionizing radiation.

Another advantage of the proposed system is that it can be easily updated. For instance, the system’s camera could be periodically replaced as digital photography technology continues to evolve. Newer technologies could improve spatial resolution, reduce data transferring time, add additional capabilities to the system, or increase the lifespan of the image acquisition hardware. For example, mirrorless cameras do not require shutter replacement or maintenance, which may be needed for the Nikon D800 after 200,000 actuations. Additionally, the use of a mirrorless camera could enhance the fluoroscopy capabilities of the proposed system, as these cameras may be better suited for video streaming. Finally, as demonstrated by the use of a general-purpose, x-ray source, the described hardware, data-acquisition techniques, post-processing, and data reconstruction are compatible with most commercially-available x-ray units, which adds another layer of flexibility to the low-cost scanner.

From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, the main components of the described scanner can be purchased at a fraction of the cost of commercially-available, micro-CT scanners with comparable imaging characteristics. Even considering that in the industry the cost of the components might only represent a third of the cost of the device ($ 85000 for a $ 260000 scanner) the costs of the described system (< $ 11000) are still significantly lower. Using the proposed CT scanner, the cost-per-scan will be significantly lower and will provide a cost-effective solution for non-destructive testing of medium-sized titanium-alloy medical components. Furthermore, the possibility of using the included dSLR camera for other quality assurance tasks could further warrant the cost-effectiveness of the equipment. For example, the camera could be refocused to image the part directly and be used for photogrammetry, surface inspection, and geometric evaluation. Finally, the modular nature of the design will allow updates, upgrades, and replacement of individual components of the scanner without the need to replace the entire unit.

V. Conclusion

This study presents the successful design, fabrication, and implementation of a low-energy (80 kVp) micro-CT scanner for cost-effective routine non-destructive testing of porous 3D-printed titanium-alloy medical components. Cost-effective CT reconstructions of titanium 3D-printed samples were achieved by acquiring data at lower x-ray potential and using a low-cost lens-coupled detector system. These reconstructions closely matched the geometric accuracy, uniformity, and linearity of relatively-expensive commercial micro-CT scanners.

The low-cost detector system, utilized a phosphor screen lens-coupled to a commercially available consumer-grade full-frame dSLR camera using a front-lit tilted configuration. This configuration provided the light-collection efficiency required for CT imaging. The camera’s sensor size (36 by 24 mm), the sensor technology (CMOS), and the lens light-transmission (f/1.4 fast lens) were key factors to ensure that the noise characteristics of the detector were dominated by photon counting statistics, rather than electronic or quantum noise.

Geometric distortions in the projection images acquired using the tilted-detector lens-coupled phosphor screen were successfully corrected using a Cartesian calibration grid. The effectiveness of the correction was evaluated at the level of the projection images and by assessing the performance of the scanner using a comprehensive CT quality assurance phantom. The performance evaluation of the system showed quantitatively accurate and geometrically stable reconstructions, with acceptable noise levels and image quality.

The proposed design for the cost-effective scanner allowed non-destructive evaluation of medium-sized titanium-alloy 3D-printed parts with a thickness up to 13 mm of solid metal. Since this evaluation was done using test-objects, future work includes non-destructive testing of medical components with clinically relevant geometries. It can be anticipated that components with large amounts of solid metal will require a modified imaging protocol to overcome the penetration limits of the 80 kVp x-ray source.

Acknowledgments

D.W.H. is the Dr. Sandy Kirkley Chair in Musculoskeletal Research within the Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry at Western University. S.F.C. is supported in part by a Transdisciplinary Bone & Joint Training Award from the Collaborative Training Program in Musculoskeletal Health Research at The University of Western Ontario. The authors would also like to thank the technical staff at ADEISS for their assistance with the manufacturing of the titanium, 3D printed, phantoms used for this study, and Hristo Nikolov for his technical support conditioning the CT quality assurance phantom prior data acquisition and manufacturing of the scanner’s frame.

Data Availability

All raw projection images and reconstructed volumes are available from the Federated Research Data Repository (FRDR) database (accession number(s) https://doi.org/10.20383/103.0603).

Funding Statement

D.H. FDN 148474 (Canadian Institutes of Health Research) https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/ NO D.H. RE-077-66 (Ontario Research Fund Research Excellence) https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-research-fund-research-excellence NO.

References

  • 1.Stock S. X-ray microtomography of materials. International materials reviews. 1999;44(4):141–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Withers PJ, Bouman C, Carmignato S, Cnudde V, Grimaldi D, Hagen CK, et al. X-ray computed tomography. Nature Reviews Methods Primers. 2021;1(1):1–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.De Chiffre L, Carmignato S, Kruth J-P, Schmitt R, Weckenmann A. Industrial applications of computed tomography. CIRP annals. 2014;63(2):655–77. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ewert U, Fuchs T. Progress in Digital Industrial Radiology. Pt. 2, Computed tomography (CT). Badania Nieniszczące i Diagnostyka. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Zwanenburg E, Williams M, Warnett J. Review of high-speed imaging with lab-based x-ray computed tomography. Measurement Science and Technology. 2021;33(1):012003. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Thompson A, Maskery I, Leach RK. X-ray computed tomography for additive manufacturing: a review. Measurement Science and Technology. 2016;27(7):072001. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Warnett JM, Titarenko V, Kiraci E, Attridge A, Lionheart WR, Withers PJ, et al. Towards in-process x-ray CT for dimensional metrology. Measurement Science and Technology. 2016;27(3):035401. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.du Plessis A, le Roux SG, Guelpa A. Comparison of medical and industrial X-ray computed tomography for non-destructive testing. Case Studies in Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation. 2016;6:17–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.de Oliveira JM Jr, Martins ACG, editors. Construction and Test of Low Cost X‐Ray Tomography Scanner for Physical‐Chemical Analysis and Nondestructive Inspections. AIP Conference Proceedings; 2009: American Institute of Physics. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.du Plessis A, Campbell N. Metrology of additively manufactured lattice structures by X-ray tomography. Transactions on Additive Manufacturing Meets Medicine. 2020;2(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Du Plessis A, Yadroitsava I, Yadroitsev I. Effects of defects on mechanical properties in metal additive manufacturing: A review focusing on X-ray tomography insights. Materials & Design. 2020;187:108385. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.du Plessis A, le Roux SG, Booysen G, Els J. Quality control of a laser additive manufactured medical implant by X-ray tomography. 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing. 2016;3(3):175–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kim HK, Ahn JK, Cho G. Development of a lens-coupled CMOS detector for an X-ray inspection system. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment. 2005;545(1–2):210–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lee SW, Kim HK, Cho G, Shin YH, Won YY. A 3-D X-ray microtomographic system with a CMOS image sensor. IEEE transactions on nuclear science. 2001;48(4):1503–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Madden TJ, McGuigan W, Molitsky MJ, Naday I, McArthur A, Westbrook EM, editors. Lens-Coupled CCD detector for x-ray crystallography. 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record; 2006: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/NSSMIC.2006.355958 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tate MW, Chamberlain D, Gruner SM. Area x-ray detector based on a lens-coupled charge-coupled device. Review of scientific instruments. 2005;76(8):081301. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fan HX. Lens-coupled x-ray imaging systems: The University of Arizona; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Panna A, Gomella A, Harmon K, Chen P, Miao H, Bennett E, et al. Performance of low-cost X-ray area detectors with consumer digital cameras. Journal of Instrumentation. 2015;10(05):T05005. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Du LY, Umoh J, Nikolov HN, Pollmann SI, Lee T-Y, Holdsworth DW. A quality assurance phantom for the performance evaluation of volumetric micro-CT systems. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2007;52(23):7087. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/52/23/021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Li X, Zhang D, Liu B. A generic geometric calibration method for tomographic imaging systems with flat‐panel detectors—A detailed implementation guide. Medical physics. 2010;37(7Part1):3844–54. doi: 10.1118/1.3431996 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Heikkila J. Geometric camera calibration using circular control points. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence. 2000;22(10):1066–77. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pollmann SI, Norley CJ, Yuan X, Holdsworth DW, editors. Resolution enhancement of computed radiography images using two orthogonal tilts. Medical Imaging 2012: Physics of Medical Imaging; 2012: International Society for Optics and Photonics. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Fahrig R, Moreau M, Holdsworth D. Three‐dimensional computed tomographic reconstruction using a C‐arm mounted XRII: Correction of image intensifier distortion. Medical physics. 1997;24(7):1097–106. doi: 10.1118/1.598013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Oliveira M, Barros JC, Ubeda C. Development of a 3D printed quality control tool for evaluation of x-ray beam alignment and collimation. Physica Medica. 2019;65:29–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.07.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Judy PF. The line spread function and modulation transfer function of a computed tomographic scanner. Medical physics. 1976;3(4):233–6. doi: 10.1118/1.594283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Anam C, Fujibuchi T, Haryanto F, Budi WS, Sutanto H, Adi K, et al. Automated MTF measurement in CT images with a simple wire phantom. Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering. 2019;25(3):179–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Droege RT, Morin RL. A practical method to measure the MTF of CT scanners. Medical physics. 1982;9(5):758–60. doi: 10.1118/1.595124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Uesugi K, Hoshino M, Yagi N. Comparison of lens-and fiber-coupled CCD detectors for X-ray computed tomography. Journal of synchrotron radiation. 2011;18(2):217–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Šalplachta J, Zikmund T, Zemek M, Břínek A, Takeda Y, Omote K, et al. Complete Ring Artifacts Reduction Procedure for Lab-Based X-ray Nano CT Systems. Sensors. 2021;21(1):238. doi: 10.3390/s21010238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alessandra Giuliani

1 Apr 2022

PONE-D-21-33035Cost-effective micro-CT system for non-destructive testing of titanium 3D printed medical componentsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cobos,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 16 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessandra Giuliani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

This paper presents a challanging idea to make X-ray CT more accessible; however there are several points which require significant revision to make your study publishable.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting experimental study, describing the design, manufacturing and implementation of a cost-effective micro-CT system for non-destructive testing of 3D printing metal parts, including titanium biomedical components fabricated using laser powder-bed-fusion technology. The scanner system allows to survey the porosity and cracks in titanium parts with thicknesses of up to 13 mm of solid metal. Quantitatively, the scanner produced geometrically-stable reconstructions, with a voxel size of 118 μm, and noise levels under 55 HU. In addition, scanner could be introduced as part of the process control and validation of component quality.

The paper is well written. There are a few minor revisions that should be made for it:

1) various concentrations of iodine shown in ml mg-1 (line 364)

The unit of measure ml mg-1 should be corrected.

2) Furthermore, thanks to the relatively high difference between the CT number of air and titanium, internal-void features or defects were identifiable below the spatial resolution limits of the system. (line 485-487)

The description of additive manufacturing defects detectable is limited to void defects. It is know that AM technologies, especially LPBF, deals with cross-contamination issues. Is the system able to detect also eventual cross-contamination (other metals or material oxide)? It is recommended to implement the argumentation on AM defects detectable.

3) Although these detected defects were not geometrically accurate, in practice, they show that the system could be effective at flagging internal defects, such as cracks or voids, that – if unnoticed – could seriously compromise the mechanical integrity of the 3D printed part. (line 488-491)

The flagging of internal defect below the instrument resolution provides only a qualitative indication of production process suitability. To evaluate the mechanical integrity of sample, it is necessary to quantify the porosity on effective area, for avoiding to not accept suitable samples (ex. for static application, a certain level of porosity are acceptable due to ASTM specifications). Please comment in the revised version of the manuscript.

4) We believe the cost-per-scan will be significantly lower when using our proposed CT scanner design, and will provide a cost-effective solution for non-destructive testing of medium-sized, titanium-alloy, medical components. (line 522-524)

Please explain in detail which are the “medium-sized, titanium-alloy, medical components” considered as target of this work.

Reviewer #2: please see the attached

This paper presents a fantastic idea to make X-ray CT more accessible in the classroom and a number of other situations. However there are a number of problems which require significant revision to make this publishable. I hope the authors do take the time to make the proposed edits as I believe it to be useful to others in the community. A few core issues

- Some incorrect sweeping statements have been made. I have highlighted these where I can

- Some of the calibration parts could be better described.

- There are objects which contain dimensional measurements and are used to quantify the ability of the system. There is no evidence that these have been calibrated or measured. This needs looking at and have suggested below

- Please, please, please identify which commas are actually necessary

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Cobos 2022.docx

PLoS One. 2022 Oct 10;17(10):e0275732. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275732.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


14 Jul 2022

Letter of response to reviewers

Manuscript titled:

Cost-effective micro-CT system for non-destructive testing of titanium 3D printed medical components

Response to reviewer #1

Reviewer’s comment:

1) various concentrations of iodine shown in ml mg-1 (line 364)

The unit of measure ml mg-1 should be corrected.

Response:

First, we want to thank the reviewer for taking the time to carefully review our manuscript. We appreciate all the observations and believe that the applied modifications have significantly improved our text. We apologize for the oversight of this typographic error. We have corrected the units to mg ml-1.

Reviewer’s comment:

2) Furthermore, thanks to the relatively high difference between the CT number of air and titanium, internal-void features or defects were identifiable below the spatial resolution limits of the system. (line 485-487)

The description of additive manufacturing defects detectable is limited to void defects. It is known that AM technologies, especially LPBF, deals with cross-contamination issues. Is the system able to detect also eventual cross-contamination (other metals or material oxide)? It is recommended to implement the argumentation on AM defects detectable.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for bringing the potential of cross-contamination of the 3D printed part during manufacturing. We do not anticipate that our system will be able to aid in the identification of these contaminants. We have included clarification about the scope of the NDT in the discussion section of the manuscript.

Reviewer’s comment:

3) Although these detected defects were not geometrically accurate, in practice, they show that the system could be effective at flagging internal defects, such as cracks or voids, that - if unnoticed - could seriously compromise the mechanical integrity of the 3D printed part. (line 488-491)

The flagging of internal defect below the instrument resolution provides only a qualitative indication of production process suitability. To evaluate the mechanical integrity of sample, it is necessary to quantify the porosity on effective area, for avoiding to not accept suitable samples (ex. for static application, a certain level of porosity are acceptable due to ASTM specifications). Please comment in the revised version of the manuscript.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for identifying this topic and for his suggestion to be more descriptive with regards to the specific characteristics that cracks or voids should have in order to be considered critical defects in the part. We have included the following text that is meant to clarify these aspects of the NDT evaluation.

“It should be emphasized that routine non-destructive testing of medical components should not have the objective of producing volumetric data for high-precision metrology of the parts but rather used for an assessment of critical defects with the potential of affecting the mechanical properties of the component. This assessment should include the size, location, and distribution of the defects. In the case of titanium medical components, the critical defect size might be 0.5 mm, requiring a spatial resolution for the CT volume in the order of 0.2 mm in order to visualize any mechanically critical defects.”

Reviewer’s comment:

4) We believe the cost-per-scan will be significantly lower when using our proposed CT scanner design, and will provide a cost-effective solution for non-destructive testing of medium-sized, titanium-alloy, medical components. (line 522-524)

Please explain in detail which are the "medium-sized, titanium-alloy, medical components" considered as target of this work.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for pointing out the need to provide specific examples to illustrate the objects that could benefit of being tested using our low-cost scanner. We have included a list of a medical devices that can be manufactured using 3D printing and that will be suitable for being evaluated using our NDT system. (Last paragraph of introduction)

Response to Reviewer #2

Reviewer’s comment:

“fluence” has been used instead of fluorescence throughout. Can you change assuming this was the intent. Its not a term I’ve come across in my time in tomography, and was unable to find a definition. Further many of the papers you cite us the term fluorescence so is the expected terminology of their readership.

Response:

First, we want to thank the reviewer for all their insightful comments we have enjoyed taking a closer look to this manuscript, and believe that all the required changes have made it an improved document.

We acknowledge that the use of the term fluence (defined as the quotient dN by dA, where dN is the number of x-ray photons that enter an imaginary sphere of cross-sectional area dA) could generate some confusion among readers. We propose to improve the text by using the term “flux” instead. Photon flux is defined as the number of photons per second per unit area, and is the more appropriate term for the context of our paper. Where we use the term to refer to an increase in photon count across a unit area per unit time. We are sorry that the use of the term “fluence” lead to confusion to the unrelated term fluorescence.

Reviewer’s comments:

There are far too many commas throughout the document to the point of being irritating. Please remove them as 75% of them are not required.

Line 29 “the cost-effective….”

This sentence has a horrendous amount of commas. Please sort.

Line 119 This sentence is a mess. Its too long and needs splitting and has far too many commas. The first three commas are the unnecessary ones

Line 127 the two commas are unnecessary

Even the first sentence has a ridiculous amount of commas!

Again the horrendous amount commas in this first sentence is infuriating.

Response:

We are sorry that the writing style of our manuscript has made it not enjoyable to read. We acknowledge that the repetitive use of several adjectives before a noun has caused distraction for the reader and prevented an efficient lecture of our text. We have noticed that writing styles treat this grammatical structure differently and have decided to adhere to the Oxford Style Guide, which does not require the use commas between multiple classifying adjectives. We have implemented this modification across the whole document.

Reviewer’s comments:

Often you slip into first person with “we” and “our”. Please remove

Line 30 “We believe…”

Make third person. First person not appropriate style, and correct throughout abstract

Line 78 – remove all first person and make third person

Line 293 “thanks to the use” language is too casual for a scientific paper. In fact I think a lot of section A has this sort of tone which could be improved.

Line 427 “we” remove all first person. Make third person

Line 461 “in our experience” – not first person please! Change to third!

Line 531, 533 “we” remove,, line 537 “our”, make third person

Response:

Again, we are sorry that our use of language has caused distraction and portrayed our descriptions as casual or less professional. We have modified all instances of first-person sentences across the document and removed casual language.

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 24 “The imaging performance of the system is characterized using a state-of-the-art, CT, quality-assurance phantom, and two titanium, 3D-printed, test specimens”

I didn’t like this sentence. “state of the art” is not true, they are printable and accessible by anyone. Instead could you replace with a sentence that describes the key features they test. E.g. The system was tested with a number of phantom containing X to evaluate Y. Arguably this sentence isn’t even necessary

Response:

We apologize for the misleading use of the term “state-of-the-art”. It was not our intention to claim that the CT quality assurance phantom used in this study is printable or easily accessible. We have decided that the term “comprehensive” represents the characteristics of this device more accurately.

Reviewer’s comment:

I think there are a couple of useful review papers which can provide further context on how the technology of X-ray CT has developed over time. It can then be commented that while the technology has developed, cost has been forgone to maintain the greatest scientific potential. Reviews for this discussion would be:

- P J Withers et al (2021) X-ray Computed Tomography, Nature Reviews Method Primers 1(18)

- S R Stock (2008) Recent Advances in X-ray microtomography applied to Materials, International Materials Reviews 53(3)

- S R Stock (1999) X-ray microtomography of Materials, International Materials Reviews 44(4)

Another relevant review to include, specific because you mention additive manufacture

- A Thompson et al (2016) X-ray Computed Tomography for additive manufacturing: a review, Measurement Science and Technology

Maybe important because it talks about parameter selection, but does focus on the “speed” aspect

- E A Zwanenburg et al (2022) Review of high-speed imaging with lab-based x-ray computed tomography, Measurement Science and Technology

These would help strengthen the discussion. Also Withers and Zwanenburg would benefit your paper being newer publications as a number of yours are older e.g. your first couple are 2014, 2017, 2016, 2016.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for their suggestion for additional literature to be included in the manuscript. We have included several references to these papers across the document, mainly in the introduction and discussion sections.

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 64 – I strongly disagree with your statement “in the case of medical components… spatial resolution needs to be on the order of 0.1mm”. It is very much dependent on the object and the context of what you wanted to observe! Glucose sensors for example which I have looked at needed 0.02mm. Acetabular hip cups achieved 0.03mm as per ref below, but it certainly would benefit from 0.01mm or better!

Kourra, Nadia, et al. "Computed tomography metrological examination of additive manufactured acetabular hip prosthesis cups." Additive Manufacturing 22 (2018): 146-152.

Response:

We are sorry that our text led to confusion with regards to the objectives of our proposed system. We understand that metrological CT examinations of medical devices benefit from low spatial resolutions. That being said, the intended scope of our study is to implement routine CT evaluation of medical components to assess critical defects that could compromise the mechanical integrity of the part. We have decided to include the following sentences to clarify the scope of our proposed application:

It should be emphasized that routine non-destructive testing of medical components should not have the objective of producing volumetric data for high-precision metrology of the parts but rather used for an assessment of critical defects with the potential of affecting the mechanical properties of the component. In the case of titanium medical components, the critical defect size might be 0.5 mm, requiring a spatial resolution for the CT volume in the order of 0.2 mm in order to visualize any mechanically critical defects.

Furthermore, we have included the following reference which discusses the topic of critical pore size in section 11.

Du Plessis, A., Yadroitsava, I. and Yadroitsev, I., 2020. Effects of defects on mechanical properties in metal additive manufacturing: A review focusing on X-ray tomography insights. Materials & Design, 187, p.108385.

For example, in the following paragraph the authors discuss the implications of increasing resolution in order to make CT evaluation more cost-effective:

“The fact that only roughly 0.5 mm pores and larger necessarily need to be detected can greatly simplify the X-ray tomography process and hence reduce scan times and costs. For example, scanning a 20 mm-diameter part at 20 μm voxel size allows accurate quantification of all pores >27 voxels in extent (a cube of 3x3x3 voxels), which relates to pores >60 μm. By scanning at the same quality (voltage and exposure time, etc.) but at voxel size of 100 μm, all pores >0.3 mm will be quantified but the number of projection images is reduced due to the lower magnification. This relates to scan time reduction in this example from 1 h to 10 min, for example.”

Reviewer’s comment:

Throughout section A and B you use cm, can you change all to mm. It is standard in design to use mm or m and it’s a bit odd to have cm.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this observation we agree that keeping one unit of measurement across the document is more consistent and clearer. We have changed all measurements in cm to mm.

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 88 remove “As previously mentioned”

Line 93 too much detail. Remove “the panels were secured…”

Line 95 similarly remove “this fabric was secured…”

Line 102 similarly, reword to “The camera-lens assembly was mounted to the frame with a sliding gantry plate that allowed camera-to-screen adjustments.”

Line 104 remove reference to clips. It’s a level of detail unnecessary

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions to improve readability and style. We have adopted the suggested changes.

Reviewer’s comment:

What hasn’t been made clear at any point is any shielding except for that covering the camera? Did you decide not to use any? Why? Please discuss this

Response:

We thank the reviewer for bringing notice to this important point. The low-cost scanner was placed inside an x-ray shielded room and operated from a safe area. We have included these details in the methods section of the manuscript, and also included a section in the discussion describing the implications of requiring the device to be fully shielded if an x-ray lead-lined room is not available.

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 128 “to match the exposure levels”… incorporate sentence on line 130 “note that…” into this sentence. Line 130 is unnecessary

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions to improve readability and style. We have adopted the suggested changes.

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 156 RGGB should be RGB? If not can you define this acronym. Also its something I am unfamiliar with going from RGB to greyscale so it would be useful to have a reference here.

Response:

We are sorry that our use of the RGGB acronym was misleading and that it was confused with the popular RGB acronym. We recognized that the use of the term “channels” also contributed to the misunderstanding. The acronym RGGB refers to the structure of one of the most common Bayer masks which are a set of four colour filters (one red, two green, and one blue) placed in front of the camera’s pixels in order to generate colour images. To prevent confusion, we have decided to remove the use of the phrase “colour channels” and clarify that the raw intensity values of the four pixels covered by the mask were averaged to generate an image with half the pixels height and width of the original image.

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 171 your distortion correction coupled with your FDK recon I am struggling with a bit. With your geometric distortion correction, I assume you are only correcting the issue arising from the camera tilt? If so please say. I assume this since you continue to use FDK for recon which is for circular cone beam. I just want to confirm that your geometrical distortion is not correcting the image effectively to a parallel beam in which case FDK is not the correct algorithm, its just simple FBP. But I think that would introduce more issues. Let me know what is going on here.

Response:

The geometric correction implemented using the square grid corrected only for the geometric distortion caused by the phosphor screen tilt, and for any lens-caused distortion. These corrected projection images were not corrected to a parallel beam.

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 175 the source alignment in this manner – do you have a reference for this method?

Line 177 “proper alignment of this ring was confirmed”. How? You’re right, its critical so how did you ensure that the ring was perfectly perpendicular to the direction of the source?

Response:

We thank the reviewer for identifying this lack of detail. We have included a suitable reference for the method and specified that the ring alignment was confirmed visually.

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 188 your FDK reconstruction, for a 3104 width detector, you would need 4876 projections according to Nyquist. Its hence a surprise that you would use only 360 projections. How did this decision come about? Can you discuss? You say you then applied x3 binning (calculated going from 39 to 118 micron) because of the spatial resolution… in this case you effectively have a 1034 width detector which requires 1625 projections. It would be an explanation for your poor signal to noise.

I have a feeling this would have been done because of your limit on dose which is fine. Working backwards from Nyquist if you binned by 12 times instead you’ll get really nice reconstructions, albeit at low quality (472 microns). To resolve, I think it would be good to justify your # projections here, then in the discussion talk about additional shielding so you can increase the effective dose and therefore more projections.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for bringing our attention with regards to the number of projections required for sampling our objects of interest following the Nyquist criterion. The decision of having a smaller number of projections than the required was related to scan time, not dose. We believe that since our reconstructions do not show strong sampling-related artifacts and our noise levels are equivalent to other commercially available scanners (running under similar conditions) we can justify this compromise and use it as a strategy to reduce scan time. This strategy has been suggested in one of the papers that the reviewer recommended.

Zwanenburg, E. A., M. A. Williams, and J. M. Warnett. "Review of high-speed imaging with lab-based x-ray computed tomography." Measurement Science and Technology 33, no. 1 (2021): 012003.

We have included text that discusses these considerations in the discussion section of the manuscript. Finally, as discussed in section 4.2 of the previously mentioned publication, it is commonplace to deviate from the strict Nyquist criterion as it is the most impactful way of reducing scan time.

“The Nyquist sample rule is not met by most operators, indicating that the recommended number of projections can be decreased while not impacting image quality for measurement and observation.”

Figure 13 in the Zwanenburg paper shows that in at least 35 scientific publications reviewed in the study the number of projections used were representative of the parameters used in our study.

Reviewer’s comment:

Throughout this of the different phantoms, I am particularly nervous where you are using dimensional measurements to quantify how good your system is – there is no evidence of a traceable measurement to confirm this against. Have you measured any of them on CMM or SEM or anything? How do you know the volume of porosity in the gyroid to be exactly that (can do an Archimedes test)? The resolution phantom is really nice in concept, but 3D printing structures this small has some issues. Particularly a number of 100um voids that close together. You need to do something to measure these properly and state how this happened.

In the worse case you need to be upfront that none of these have been traceably measured and then redefine their purpose and the subsequent result.

- The porosity phantom. Given a design intent it has been 3D printed. Under this system operation we were able to identify pores as small as X, with an estimated porosity of Y

- The Ti6Al4V I really want a hi-res optical image of the surface with measurements as a minimum. Then you can say at the surface you know these measurements to be true. Then when things are not visible lower down it could be down to the system, or it could be a manufacturing error – you cannot confirm. Further where the line pairs do run further down you must state that you cannot guarantee their size below the surface. Another alternative which might be a nice idea is to scan it with a real X-ray CT system to serve as a gold standard. This would be much higher resolution and provide a sanity check. I am UK based so cannot suggest Canadian locations, but a number of US locations I know about are University Texas has an NSI system with Jessie Maisano where I am sure she would be happy to hear from you, or maybe University of Florida Ed Stanley/Stuart Stock.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for making us realize that the descriptions of our phantoms lacked important details. We agree that providing objective and quantifiable characteristics of these objects is of main importance.

For the case of the CT quality assurance phantom, we were relying on the descriptions from a previous publication about the design of this device (Du et al.). Nevertheless, the reviewer is correct to point out that the information we provided for the phantom included nominal measurements that were lacking information about the precision of the fabrication of the phantom. To solve this doubt, we have modified the nominal values for the inter-bead distances by the average distance between beads measured using an Olympus STM6 measuring microscope with resolution of 0.1 µm. We believe this to be an independent validation of the distances between beads.

With regards to the gyroid-based porous cylinder we apologize for the potential lack of clarity in our writing. But, in the end of section E of the Methods of the paper we describe that the CT measured porosity fraction of this object was compared to the gravimetrically-determined porosity fraction of the 3D printed sample compared to the mass of a solid cylinder printed simultaneously. We also believe that this is an independent validation of the porosity fraction of the object as described in the following publication:

Hong, Greg, Junmin Liu, Santiago F. Cobos, Tina Khazaee, Maria Drangova, and David W. Holdsworth. "Effective magnetic susceptibility of 3D‐printed porous metal scaffolds." Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (2022).

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion to characterize the as-built defects within the titanium phantom. We have taken the opportunity to have the phantom scanned with a commercial scanner (Zeiss Xradia 410 Versa) at much higher energy (150 kVp) and higher resolution (12.6µm). This scan data confirmed that the as-built dimensions differed from the nominal requested design dimensions of the defects (typically built 170µm larger than requested). It also confirmed that the defects were fabricated consistently throughout the phantom. This information has been added to the methods (page, para), results sections (page, para), and discussion.

Reviewer’s comment:

I think section A content is in the wrong place. I realise its an output of the idea which is why you’ve put it where you have, but I feel it should be back in the method with the system description because those choices were clearly already made.

The system design is part of the method, and the results are justifying that this works as you determined.

If not, your method for the system design needs to become less descript in terms of naming components and instead discuss characteristics of the specific components you want. Then Section A in results can cover your choices and why. I think this is messier, so advise you go with my earlier suggestion.

Line 303 – this is the only bit of part A which talks about a result. Given you are moving the rest to the method, I would suggest moving this paragraph into the discussion.

Response:

Although originally, we thought that this section was worth including in the results, we agree that moving these details to the methods section does not affect the description of the project. We have implemented both suggestions.

Reviewer’s comment:

Table 2 – right justify numbers. Also in the caption you should refer to the date these prices were obtained. This will change with time!

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions to improve readability and style. We have adopted the suggested changes.

Reviewer’s comment:

Section C b. needs some work and is confusing. I think what you are trying to say is that after your geometric distortion corrections, the reconstructed volume distances between beads were evaluated against the known values of the beads.

- How were the known values, known? CMM measured? To what accuracy? I doubt they were exactly 35mm, 24.75mm and 49.5mm…

- You jump between measurements of number of voxels and mm. that is confusing. Without going back and doing the maths myself I don’t know that 209 voxels is equal to a particular length we were after!

- It would be useful to have a graph of error vs test length, plotting each distance between the spheres. It should have error bars that represent the 95% confidence interval

Can you please give this short section a rework.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for noticing the possible lack of relevant detail in this section of the manuscript. We have decided to follow the reviewer’s advice and change the reported measurements in mm instead of voxels. And we have included a graph in Figure 11. Showing the comparison between nominal distances and the distances calculated from the CT reconstruction. The graph includes the mean and 95% confidence interval for all the possible distances between all beads.

Reviewer’s comment:

See my comments above about know the precise porosity. The results of the resolution phantom comes across as “look at the figure” and you ran out of steam when writing. I think there is more detail you can put here about the success and not, and how this translates to the limitations of the system. This could be helped by referring to specific sub figures (e.g. 16f) to motivate the discussion, and also demonstrate that the specific figures are actually useful.

Response:

We appreciate the suggestion to elaborate further in the description of the results of the resolution phantom. We have included details with regards to the comparison between the nominal and CT-measured sizes of the defects, as well as commentary with regards to the limitations of the low-cost scanner and critical size of defects.

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 471 This sentence is way too general and actually over reaching. The spatial resolution is one of the key benchmarks of micro-CT systems! So what benchmarks is it the same as?

Response:

We are sorry that the reviewers considered this section over reaching. It was never our intention to claim unjustified characteristics of our low-cost scanner. We have modified the sentence to mention the precise characteristics we were referring to.

Reviewer’s comment:

In fact this entire paragraph is fraught with incorrect info. CMOS in commercial cameras DO have defects, the same as CT detectors. The have “bad pixel” corrections and “noisy pixel” corrections but these are buried in the camera software so you wouldn’t even know they are there. I think I would focus on the benchmarks you broadly say this system exceeds. Quantify numerically. Its probably sensible to quantify the decrease in ability against the cost i.e. this system costs 50x but the spatial resolution is about 10x worse than the highest possible resolution on typical 225kv micro CT scanners, which is 5 um.

Response:

Again, we are sorry to learn our writing was misleading. It was never our intention to claim that our system is better than any other system with regards to fixed-pattern noise and ring artifacts. The intent was to mention the fact that our system was less susceptible to ring artifacts when compared to our pre-clinical scanners, which are equipped with x-ray detectors that use CCD fibre-optic tapered technology. Furthermore, our objective was to mention that due to the specific requirements of the digital photography industry, it is less likely that a high-end digital camera will be sold with critical defects at the detector level. We have modified the text to better communicate these ideas by specifying the detector technology that is more susceptible to ring artifacts, and by specifying that we are only talking about critical defects which are unlikely to be found in commercially available cameras. It is important to clarify that these previously mentioned pre-clinical scanners also implement bad pixel and noisy pixel corrections, but these corrections aren’t enough to prevent ring artifacts in some scenarios. Many of these systems will then include additional ring removal strategies that often compromise image quality. Therefore we do believe that it is an advantage for our proposed detector technology to have less susceptibility to fixed-pattern noise.

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 459. You should easily be able to write a script to better calibrate this. You could do so in matlab and use the Hough transform. Happy to accept the manual approach here but I think you can have a bit more detail on how this can be done.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for their comment with regards to automation of the geometric correction process. We believe that it was out of the scope of this project to design these additional software utilities. We are aware of many different approaches to streamline this specific correction and therefore we believe it is not necessary to specify one specific approach over the other. Furthermore, most of the utilities used for the image reconstruction were developed in C++ for a Linux computer and we do not believe implementations in other platforms such as MatLab are worth exploring.

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 495 When you talk about taking it to site I think it might be good to mention the size case this could theoretically be packed away in and the weight. It will give the idea to the reader of the degree of portability – can I carry in a backpack, or is this a heavier wheel case? Also what power source does it need?

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and have added information about the size and weight of the hardware in the methods section.

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 499 “as previously mentioned” – remove. I think this first sentence is duplicating what has just been said. Please review how this reads with the previous paragraph talking about archeological sites.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions to improve readability and style. We have adopted the suggested changes.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_ReviewersComments_Cobos_DWH_SC_0617_2022_final.docx

Decision Letter 1

Alessandra Giuliani

23 Sep 2022

Cost-effective micro-CT system for non-destructive testing of titanium 3D printed medical components

PONE-D-21-33035R1

Dear Dr. Cobos,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alessandra Giuliani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Alessandra Giuliani

29 Sep 2022

PONE-D-21-33035R1

Cost-effective micro-CT system for non-destructive testing of titanium 3D printed medical components

Dear Dr. Cobos:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alessandra Giuliani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Cobos 2022.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_ReviewersComments_Cobos_DWH_SC_0617_2022_final.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All raw projection images and reconstructed volumes are available from the Federated Research Data Repository (FRDR) database (accession number(s) https://doi.org/10.20383/103.0603).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES