Firstly, great poster & fascinating research!
Secondly, I'd love to hear your thoughts about the other uses of 3D printing in forensic anthropology - teaching, courtroom etc. Do you think the quality is as important, or more/less in these areas? :)
Hi Jo, thanks for your comments!
I think the level of quality needed depends on what you are trying to show, whether it's just the overall shape of a bone or the sutures/fracture lines etc.
In a courtroom the print needs to be demonstrably reliable and accurate to be able to withstand cross-examination etc., whereas in a classroom that's less important.
However, whether in court/classrooms, I do think that prints need to be interpreted initially by someone who understands the scanning/printing processes, so that scan/print artefacts can be differentiated from features such as pathology etc. Similarly, the print should be presented alongside original photographs or 3D models, to allow for comparison to the original sample.
Hope that helps, please let me know if you have any more questions!
I liked reading this poster, very interesting.
I'd like to ask if have you thought to try printing on different materials. What if with another material the 3D printer would have better accuracy on texture?
Thanks for your comment and interest!
Great question, in the first publication from my PhD research I tested several different types of 3D printers /materials, and concluded that SLS was the most accurate and aesthetically similar to the bone samples. So I have followed that recommendation in this research. The most important factor to affect the quality is the scan/print resolution.