A Slicer-Independent Framework for Measuring G-Code Accuracy in Medical 3D Printing

In medical 3D printing, accuracy is critical for fabricating patient-specific implants and anatomical models. Although printer performance has been widely examined, the influence of slicing software on geometric fidelity is less frequently quantified. The slicing step, which converts STL files into printer-readable G-code, may introduce deviations that affect the final printed object. To quantify slicer-induced G-code deviations by comparing G-code-derived geometries with their reference STL modelsTwenty mandibular models were processed using five slicers (PrusaSlicer (version 2.9.1.), Cura (version 5.2.2.), Simplify3D (version 4.1.2.), Slic3r (version 1.3.0.) and Fusion 360 (version 2.0.19725)). A custom Python workflow converted the G-code into point clouds and reconstructed STL meshes through XY and Z corrections, marching cubes surface extraction, and volumetric extrusion. A calibration object enabled coordinate normalization across slicers. Accuracy was assessed using Mean Surface Distance (MSD), Root Mean Square (RMS) deviation, and Volume Difference. MSD ranged from 0.071 to 0.095 mm, and RMS deviation from 0.084 to 0.113 mm, depending on the slicer. Volumetric differences were slicer-dependent. PrusaSlicer yielded the highest surface accuracy; Simplify3D and Slic3r showed best repeatability. Fusion 360 produced the largest deviations. The slicers introduced geometric deviations below 0.1 mm that represent a substantial proportion of the overall error in the FDM workflow.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Imaging
Published
2026-01-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging12010025
Primary Topic
Anatomy and Medical Technology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Slicer-Independent Framework for Measuring G-Code Accuracy in Medical 3D Printing

Michel Beyer, Alexandru Victor Burde, Florian M. Thieringer, Sead Abazi et al.
Journal of Imaging
Anatomy and Medical Technology
article

A Slicer-Independent Framework for Measuring G-Code Accuracy in Medical 3D Printing

Michel Beyer, Alexandru Victor Burde, Florian M. Thieringer, Sead Abazi, Andreas E. Roser, Maximiliane Beyer
article en

Abstract

In medical 3D printing, accuracy is critical for fabricating patient-specific implants and anatomical models. Although printer performance has been widely examined, the influence of slicing software on geometric fidelity is less frequently quantified. The slicing step, which converts STL files into printer-readable G-code, may introduce deviations that affect the final printed object. To quantify slicer-induced G-code deviations by comparing G-code-derived geometries with their reference STL modelsTwenty mandibular models were processed using five slicers (PrusaSlicer (version 2.9.1.), Cura (version 5.2.2.), Simplify3D (version 4.1.2.), Slic3r (version 1.3.0.) and Fusion 360 (version 2.0.19725)). A custom Python workflow converted the G-code into point clouds and reconstructed STL meshes through XY and Z corrections, marching cubes surface extraction, and volumetric extrusion. A calibration object enabled coordinate normalization across slicers. Accuracy was assessed using Mean Surface Distance (MSD), Root Mean Square (RMS) deviation, and Volume Difference. MSD ranged from 0.071 to 0.095 mm, and RMS deviation from 0.084 to 0.113 mm, depending on the slicer. Volumetric differences were slicer-dependent. PrusaSlicer yielded the highest surface accuracy; Simplify3D and Slic3r showed best repeatability. Fusion 360 produced the largest deviations. The slicers introduced geometric deviations below 0.1 mm that represent a substantial proportion of the overall error in the FDM workflow.

Journal of ImagingVol. 12(1)
University of Basel (CH), University of Zurich (CH), Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy (RO), University Hospital of Basel (CH)
Openalex Percentile: Top 97%
Anatomy and Medical Technology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.