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

**Authors:** Michel Beyer, Alexandru Burde, Andreas E. Roser, Maximiliane Beyer, Sead Abazi, Florian M. Thieringer

PMC · DOI: 10.3390/jimaging12010025 · Journal of Imaging · 2026-01-04

## TL;DR

This study evaluates how different slicing software affects the accuracy of 3D-printed medical models by analyzing G-code deviations.

## Contribution

The paper introduces a slicer-independent framework to measure G-code accuracy in medical 3D printing using a custom Python workflow.

## Key findings

- PrusaSlicer achieved the highest surface accuracy with deviations below 0.1 mm.
- Fusion 360 produced the largest geometric deviations among the tested slicers.
- Simplify3D and Slic3r showed the best repeatability in printing accuracy.

## 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.

## Full-text entities

- **Species:** Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12843157/full.md

## Figures

10 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12843157/full.md

## References

28 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12843157/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12843157