{"id":1286,"date":"2026-06-07T09:19:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-07T09:19:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/academicsociety.org\/medicalhealthjournal\/?p=1286"},"modified":"2026-10-06T09:34:22","modified_gmt":"2026-10-06T09:34:22","slug":"calcium-hydroxide-epoxy-resin-formulations-as-low-cost-bone-mimicking-hand-phantoms-for-general-radiography-an-experimental-feasibility-study","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/academicsociety.org\/medicalhealthjournal\/2026\/06\/07\/calcium-hydroxide-epoxy-resin-formulations-as-low-cost-bone-mimicking-hand-phantoms-for-general-radiography-an-experimental-feasibility-study\/","title":{"rendered":"Calcium Hydroxide\u2013Epoxy Resin Formulations as Low-Cost Bone-Mimicking Hand Phantoms for General Radiography: An Experimental Feasibility Study"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n


Medical imaging phantoms are physical models designed to reproduce selected anatomical, physical, or radiological characteristics of the human body. They provide stable and repeatable test objects for radiographic education, equipment quality assurance, dosimetry, image-quality evaluation, protocol optimization, and research [1, 2]. Because a phantom can be exposed repeatedly without biological risk, it is particularly useful when repeated human exposure would have no direct clinical benefit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anthropomorphic phantoms emphasize anatomical form and radiographic appearance, while tissue-equivalent or tissue-mimicking materials are designed to reproduce measurable properties of a target tissue [3]. The degree of equivalence required depends on the intended application. A positioning phantom may mainly require realistic geometry and visible anatomical landmarks, whereas a dosimetry or quantitative quality-assurance phantom may require close matching of mass density, elemental composition, effective atomic number, electron density, attenuation coefficients, scatter, and dose-absorption characteristics [1, 4].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In projection radiography, the final image is influenced by X-ray beam quality and quantity, object thickness, material composition, physical density, scatter, image-receptor response, and film-processing conditions [5]. Bone attenuates diagnostic X-rays more strongly than most surrounding soft tissues because of its mineral composition and relatively high density [6]. Calcium is an important component of mineralized bone, making calcium-containing compounds logical candidates for experimental bone-mimicking materials [7].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Commercial anthropomorphic phantoms offer standardized construction and predictable radiographic performance, but their cost and procurement requirements can limit availability in some academic laboratories [8]. Locally fabricated phantoms may therefore provide useful alternatives for teaching and preliminary experimentation if their performance is characterized carefully and their intended use is clearly defined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Epoxy resin has been used as a matrix for tissue-substitute materials because it can be cast into stable shapes and modified by incorporating fillers [1, 9]. The final radiological behavior of an epoxy composite depends on the chemistry of the resin and hardener, the type and concentration of filler, internal homogeneity, porosity, physical density, specimen thickness, and beam energy [10]. Recent phantom studies continue to characterize epoxy-based materials using density, effective atomic number, attenuation, CT numbers, entrance-surface dose, and backscatter-related parameters [11, 12]. Calcium hydroxide is a calcium-containing inorganic compound. Earlier work has reported the use of hydrated lime\/calcium-containing economical materials to mimic selected bone-related X-ray properties for quality-assurance and educational applications [13]. This provides a practical basis for investigating calcium hydroxide as a filler in an epoxy matrix. Nevertheless, a material cannot be considered tissue-equivalent solely because it contains calcium or produces a visually acceptable radiograph [1, 3]. The original experiment used film optical density as the principal quantitative outcome. Optical density is a measure of the degree of blackening of processed radiographic film and is determined using a densitometer [14].  Although optical density can indicate differences in the amount of radiation reaching the film, it is also influenced by film response, exposure conditions, scatter, and chemical processing [15]. Therefore, optical-density similarity should be interpreted as a preliminary screening outcome rather than proof of complete radiological equivalence. The present study was developed in response to the need for a potentially inexpensive and locally fabricated hand phantom for general-radiography education. Three calcium hydroxide concentrations were selected to explore whether varying the amount of radiopaque filler would alter the resulting film optical density and whether one formulation would approach the optical-density response of a standard anthropomorphic hand phantom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aim<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The study aimed to evaluate the potential of different calcium hydroxide\u2013epoxy resin formulations as low-cost bone-mimicking materials for an anthropomorphic hand phantom in general radiography.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Specific Objectives<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. To fabricate three hand phantoms containing 40 g, 70 g, and 100 g of calcium hydroxide, with each formulation combined with the same volume of epoxy resin and hardener.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. To determine the mean and standard deviation of the film optical density produced by each calcium hydroxide formulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. To determine the mean and standard deviation of the film optical density produced by the standard anthropomorphic hand phantom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. To determine whether a statistically significant difference exists among the mean optical densities of the three experimental formulations and the standard anthropomorphic phantom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. To compare the formulations pairwise and identify which tested formulation produces the smallest absolute mean optical-density difference from the standard anthropomorphic phantom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. To identify methodological and material-characterization requirements for further development of calcium hydroxide\u2013epoxy resin as a radiographic phantom material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

METHODOLOGY<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research Design<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study used an experimental comparative design involving three calcium hydroxide\u2013epoxy formulations and a standard anthropomorphic hand phantom. The experimental formulations contained 40 g, 70 g, and 100 g of calcium hydroxide, respectively, while the volumes of epoxy resin and hardener were held constant. The principal measured outcome was the optical density of the processed radiographic films.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research Setting<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The study was conducted at the Medical Diagnostic Center X-ray Laboratory and darkroom laboratory of a University in Cebu City, Philippines. The researchers obtained permission to use the X-ray room, darkroom, X-ray machine, negatoscope, densitometer, cassette, and radiographic films.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Materials and Equipment<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The materials used to construct the experimental phantoms included calcium hydroxide, epoxy resin, epoxy hardener, mixing containers, a hand mold, and appropriate personal protective equipment. The epoxy resin and hardener were purchased from Faith Construct Inc., Epoxy Specialist and General Contractor. Calcium hydroxide was purchased from Far Eastern Drug, Incorporated, 103\u2013105 Pres. Osme\u00f1a Boulevard, Cebu City 6000. A total of 210 g calcium hydroxide was used across the three formulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Radiographic data collection used 14 \u00d7 17-inch radiographic films, a cassette, the Medical Diagnostic Center X-ray unit, an automatic film processor, a negatoscope, and a calibrated DT-100 handheld densitometer. The densitometer was recalibrated\/reset to zero before optical-density measurements a DT-100 handheld densitometer. The densitometer was zeroed before optical-density measurements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sample Size and Pre-experiment<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before the main experiment, the researchers conducted a pre-experiment to assess feasibility and estimate the effect size required for sample-size calculation. The pre-experiment produced mean (SD) optical densities of 1.42 (0.22), 1.18 (0.24), and 0.83 (0.21) for the 40 g, 70 g, and 100 g formulations, respectively, and 1.08 (0.19) for the standard anthropomorphic phantom. The pre-experiment yielded F(3,8) = 3.91, p = .05. Based on the effect-size estimate derived from the pre-experiment, 80% statistical power, and a 5% significance level, the original study determined that 17 radiographic exposures were required. The 17 exposures represented repeated radiographic measurements of the same fabricated phantoms rather than 17 independently fabricated specimens per formulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Preparation of the Experimental Phantoms<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Safety precautions were observed during phantom preparation. Safety precautions were observed during phantom preparation. The researchers wore gloves, masks, head caps, foot covers, and other protective equipment specified in the original protocol. For Group A, 40 g calcium hydroxide was measured using a weighing scale and placed in a mixing bowl. Fifty milliliters of epoxy resin and 50 mL hardener were added. The materials were mixed thoroughly until a smooth and visually homogeneous mixture was obtained, then transferred to the hand mold and labeled Group A. For Group B, the same procedure was repeated using 70 g calcium hydroxide, 50 mL epoxy resin, and 50 mL hardener. The mixture was transferred to the hand mold and labeled Group B. For Group C, 100 g calcium hydroxide was combined with 50 mL epoxy resin and 50 mL hardener, mixed until smooth, transferred to the hand mold, and labeled Group C. The original research procedure states that each formulation was mixed for approximately one minute. After pouring, the molded composites were left at room temperature until completely dry before removal from the mold and radiographic exposure. Because final cured dimensions and physical density were not measured in the original experiment, these variables could not be incorporated into the present analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Radiographic Acquisition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The three experimental hand phantoms and the standard anthropomorphic hand phantom were positioned together on top of a loaded 14 \u00d7 17-inch cassette. Seventeen radiographic films were exposed, each film contained radiographic information from all four phantoms; therefore, each phantom contributed one optical-density measurement per exposure.  A table-top technique was used. The main procedural description and original abstract report a constant exposure of 60 kVp and 1.6 mAs; this value is therefore used in the present publication draft. One isolated sentence in the thesis reports 1.2 mAs and is treated as a transcription inconsistency because the abstract and detailed data-gathering procedure both specify 1.6 mAs. After exposure, films were processed in the darkroom using an automatic processor. Consistent exposure geometry and film processing are important in densitometric comparisons because changes in beam quality, mAs, object thickness, source-to-image distance, scatter, and processing conditions can alter film optical density [14].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Optical-Density Measurement<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Following processing, the radiographs were viewed on a negatoscope during optical-density assessment. Optical density was measured using a DT-100 handheld densitometer, which was zeroed before measurements. The instrument was reset to zero before measurements. Optical-density values were recorded in a master data sheet in Microsoft Excel. The images were labeled A1\u2013A17 for the 40 g formulation, B1\u2013B17 for the 70 g formulation, C1\u2013C17 for the 100 g formulation, and X1\u2013X17 for the standard anthropomorphic phantom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The original study used the conventional film optical-density range of 0.25\u20132.5 as a descriptive reference. For the present publication, this range is not used as evidence of tissue equivalence because an acceptable film-density range does not establish that a material has the same attenuation characteristics as human bone or a commercial anthropomorphic phantom [16].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Radiation and Chemical Safety<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

During radiographic exposures, the researchers remained behind the lead barrier and wore personal dosimeters. Personal dosimetry is used to monitor occupational exposure to ionizing radiation [17]. Chemical and laboratory waste was segregated according to the procedures described in the original protocol. The calcium hydroxide safety data sheet identifies the material as corrosive and capable of causing respiratory irritation, supporting the use of appropriate protective equipment and controlled handling [18].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ethical and Institutional Approval<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The research protocol underwent institutional review at Cebu Doctors\u2019 University. The Institutional Ethics Review Committee (CDU-IERC) issued an endorsement dated January 12, 2023, with IERC Code EX2023-009-Lovitos-Calciumhydroxide. The project was subsequently evaluated by the Institutional Biosafety Committee. An Ethical Review Approval Form dated February 21, 2023 documented review of protocol BSRT_2023_01 and required compliance with institutional research and biosafety procedures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Statistical Analysis<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Data was processed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 23. Means and standard deviations were used to summarize optical density. The reported Shapiro\u2013Wilk test indicated no significant departure from normality, W = 0.986, p = 0.632. Levene\u2019s test indicated unequal variances, F(3, 64) = 9.217, p < 0.01. The original analysis used one-way analysis of variance followed by Dunnett\u2019s T3 post-hoc comparisons at \u03b1 = 0.05. The reported overall effect size was \u03b7\u00b2 = 0.376. All four phantoms were positioned on the same loaded cassette for each of the 17 exposures, and the same fabricated phantoms were repeatedly measured across exposures. Consequently, the observations were not fully independent and were naturally clustered by film\/exposure. A definitive reanalysis of the raw dataset should account for this repeated-measures structure and within-exposure correlation [19]. The inferential statistics presented below are therefore retained as the originally reported thesis analysis and should be interpreted with this limitation in mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RESULTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Descriptive Findings<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

All three experimental formulations produced higher mean optical density than the standard anthropomorphic hand phantom. The 100 g formulation produced the highest mean optical density, followed by the 40 g and 70 g formulations. The standard phantom produced the lowest mean optical density and the largest standard deviation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The absolute difference between the 40 g formulation and the standard phantom was 0.53. The corresponding difference for the 70 g formulation was 0.51, while the 100 g formulation differed by 0.58. Thus, the 70 g formulation was numerically closest to the standard phantom on the measured optical-density outcome.
Note.<\/strong> n represents the number of radiographic measurements\/exposures per phantom, not the number of independently fabricated phantom specimens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Holistic evaluation<\/strong>
The reported one-way ANOVA showed a statistically significant overall difference in mean optical density among the four groups, F(3,64)=12.829, p<0.001. The reported \u03b7\u00b2 of 0.376 indicates that 37.6% of the variance in optical density was associated with group membership under the original statistical model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The three calcium hydroxide formulations did not differ significantly from one another. In contrast, every experimental formulation differed significantly from the standard anthropomorphic phantom. Therefore, the results do not demonstrate statistical similarity or equivalence between any tested formulation and the standard phantom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pattern Across Formulations<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The means did not show a simple concentration-response trend. Mean optical density decreased slightly from 1.35 at 40 g to 1.33 at 70 g and then increased to 1.40 at 100 g. This suggests that increasing calcium hydroxide mass alone did not produce a predictable linear change in film optical density within the tested formulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DISCUSSIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Principal Findings<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study investigated whether calcium hydroxide incorporated into an epoxy-resin matrix could provide a practical low-cost material for hand-phantom construction. The three experimental formulations generated closely grouped optical-density values, but all produced higher mean optical density than the standard anthropomorphic phantom. The 70 g formulation was numerically closest to the standard phantom. Nevertheless, its difference from the standard remained statistically significant. The appropriate interpretation is therefore that 70 g was the closest among the three tested formulations, not that it was equivalent to the standard phantom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Relationship to Previous Phantom Research<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Epoxy systems have long been investigated as matrices for tissue substitutes because they are stable after curing and can be modified using fillers [9]. Modern reviews continue to identify polymers and composite materials as important components of imaging and therapy phantoms [1]. The present study is also conceptually consistent with Alkhateeb [13], who investigated economical calcium-containing material for bone-like X-ray applications. However, contemporary phantom research generally evaluates multiple physical and radiological parameters rather than relying on image darkness alone [11, 12]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interpretation of Higher Optical Density<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In screen-film radiography, higher optical density represents greater film blackening [14]. When exposure and processing are constant, differences in the amount of radiation transmitted through the object can influence the resulting density. However, optical density is not a direct measurement of the material\u2019s attenuation coefficient because it also reflects scatter, film response, and chemical processing [16]. The higher optical densities observed for the experimental phantoms may therefore reflect lower overall attenuation at the measured regions, reduced phantom thickness, differences in geometry, or a combination of these factors. The original thesis specifically acknowledged that the handmade experimental phantoms were smaller than the standard anthropomorphic hand phantom. This size difference is an important confound because X-ray transmission depends on both material attenuation and path length [20].

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Calcium Hydroxide as a Bone-Mimicking Filler<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Calcium hydroxide is a plausible radiopaque filler because it contains calcium, while the mineral composition and relatively high density of bone contribute substantially to its X-ray attenuation [6. 7]. Nevertheless, calcium hydroxide is not chemically identical to hydroxyapatite or to the heterogeneous composition of cortical and trabecular bone [21].  The final radiographic behavior of the experimental phantom is determined by the entire cured composite. The calcium hydroxide concentration, epoxy matrix, hardener, porosity, filler distribution, cured density, and thickness all contribute to attenuation [22]. For this reason, future formulations should be described using filler mass fraction and measured bulk density in addition to nominal grams of calcium hydroxide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Absence of a Linear Concentration Response<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The lack of a monotonic trend across 40 g, 70 g, and 100 g suggests that simply increasing calcium hydroxide mass may not reliably move the material toward the reference phantom. Several experimental factors could potentially explain this finding, including differences in final phantom thickness, filler distribution, particle settling, trapped air, film response, and ordinary measurement variability [10, 14]. A more systematic optimization strategy would vary filler fraction and specimen thickness simultaneously while directly measuring attenuation. This would permit identification of a formulation that approaches a predefined radiological target rather than relying only on nominal filler mass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Optical Density Versus Tissue Equivalence<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A major interpretive issue is the distinction between acceptable film density and tissue equivalence. A film may fall within a conventional optical-density range and still have been produced by a material with attenuation characteristics that differ substantially from bone; therefore, acceptable film density alone should not be interpreted as evidence of tissue equivalence [3]. Modern tissue-equivalent phantom validation may include physical density, elemental composition, effective atomic number, electron density, mass attenuation coefficients, linear attenuation coefficients, CT numbers where relevant, scatter\/backscatter behavior, and dose-related measurements. [4, 11, 12]. Therefore, the present study should be viewed as an initial feasibility assessment. It demonstrates that calcium hydroxide\u2013epoxy composites can be fabricated into hand-shaped objects and produce measurable radiographic responses, but it does not establish complete bone equivalence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Educational Relevance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Phantoms are valuable in radiologic technology education because they allow repeated practice without unnecessary patient exposure [2]. A locally fabricated hand phantom could support demonstrations of positioning, centering, collimation, exposure-factor changes, and basic image evaluation. The level of validation required should match the educational task. A model used only for positioning practice may require realistic geometry more than exact dosimetric equivalence, whereas a phantom used for exposure optimization, image-quality benchmarking, or radiation-dose assessment requires stronger quantitative characterization [3]. The calcium hydroxide\u2013epoxy prototype may therefore have potential as a teaching-development material, but its specific educational applications should be tested before routine adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Relevance to Digital Radiography<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The original experiment used film-screen radiography. Contemporary general radiography is predominantly digital, where displayed brightness can be modified by post-processing and is not directly equivalent to film optical density [23].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Future digital evaluation should use standardized regions of interest and report metrics such as exposure index, deviation index, detector pixel values, signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, and observer-based image-quality scores. Testing across multiple kVp values would also show whether the material maintains similar relative attenuation as beam quality changes [3].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Statistical Interpretation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The reported ANOVA and Dunnett\u2019s T3 tests found significant differences between every experimental formulation and the standard phantom. These results do not support a claim of equivalence. Conversely, the absence of a statistically significant difference would not by itself establish equivalence, because formal equivalence testing requires prespecified equivalence bounds representing differences considered practically negligible [24].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSION<\/strong>
Calcium hydroxide\u2013epoxy resin formulations demonstrated preliminary potential as low-cost materials for constructing educational hand phantoms in film-based general radiography. All three formulations could be molded into hand-shaped objects and produced measurable radiographic optical densities. Among the formulations tested, the 70 g calcium hydroxide formulation produced the smallest absolute mean optical-density difference from the standard anthropomorphic phantom. However, all three experimental formulations differed significantly from the reference phantom. The present evidence therefore does not establish tissue equivalence or interchangeability with a standard commercial anthropomorphic phantom. The study is best regarded as a feasibility and prototype-development investigation. Further material optimization, matched geometry, direct attenuation measurements, digital-radiography testing, reproducibility assessment, and statistical reanalysis are required before the material can be recommended for quantitative quality assurance, dosimetry, or as a validated bone-equivalent substitute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RECOMMENDATIONS<\/strong>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. The 70 g formulation may be considered as one starting point for further optimization because it produced the smallest absolute mean optical-density difference from the standard phantom; however, the small differences among the three experimental formulations should be considered when selecting formulations for further testing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Future experimental and reference phantoms should be fabricated or selected with matched dimensions and thicknesses to minimize geometric confounding.
3. The cured mass, volume, and physical density of each formulation should be measured and reported.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Material composition should be characterized sufficiently to estimate or measure effective atomic number and electron density.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. Mass and linear attenuation coefficients should be evaluated over several clinically relevant diagnostic X-ray energies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. Multiple independently prepared samples of each formulation should be tested to determine batch-to-batch reproducibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7. Internal homogeneity, particle sedimentation, and air voids should be assessed using radiography, CT, or sectional inspection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8. Future experiments should use digital radiography and include quantitative image-quality measures such as signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

9. If the phantom is intended for quality assurance or dosimetry, scatter, backscatter, and dose-related properties should be characterized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

10. The raw dataset should be reanalyzed using a statistical approach that accounts for the repeated-measures structure and within-exposure correlation among measurements obtained from the same 17 exposures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

11. Future publications should report the exact X-ray unit model, film-screen system, automatic processor specifications, source-to-image distance, field size, densitometer measurement location, final phantom dimensions, and material batch information when these are recorded prospectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LIMITATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, film optical density was the principal material-performance outcome. Optical density is an indirect image-system measurement and does not independently establish tissue equivalence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, the experimental phantoms were smaller than the standard anthropomorphic hand phantom. Differences in thickness and geometry could therefore account for part of the observed optical-density differences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third, the study did not measure physical density, mass attenuation coefficient, effective atomic number, electron density, scatter, backscatter, or dose absorption. These properties are important for more rigorous characterization of tissue-mimicking materials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fourth, the material was evaluated primarily at a single reported exposure technique of 60 kVp and 1.6 mAs. Energy-dependent behavior was not assessed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fifth, the original thesis contains one isolated report of 1.2 mAs despite the abstract and principal data-gathering procedure reporting 1.6 mAs. The present manuscript uses 1.6 mAs because it is supported by the abstract and the detailed exposure procedure, but the discrepancy remains a limitation of the original documentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sixth, the exact X-ray unit model, film-screen product, automatic processor model, source-to-image distance, field size, and some other technical specifications were not stated in the accessible thesis text and therefore cannot be supplied without inventing information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Seventh, although the densitometer is identifiable from the research-instrument photograph as a DT-100 handheld densitometer, the original manuscript does not clearly document the exact anatomical region or aperture location used for every optical-density measurement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eighth, only one fabricated phantom per formulation appears to have been tested. The study therefore does not establish batch-to-batch manufacturing reproducibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ninth, the 17 measurements obtained for each formulation represented repeated radiographic observations of the same fabricated phantom rather than measurements from 17 independently fabricated specimens. Consequently, the study cannot determine manufacturing variability or whether independently prepared phantoms of the same formulation would produce comparable radiographic properties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tenth, the study used conventional film radiography, limiting direct generalizability to current digital radiography systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Generative AI Declaration<\/strong>
During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT solely for proofreading and language-editing assistance. All content was subsequently reviewed and edited by the authors, who take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the published work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. McGarry, C. K., Grattan, L. J., Ivory, A. M., Leek, F., Liney, G. P., Liu, Y., Miloro, P., Rai, R., Robinson, A. P., Shih, A. J., Zeqiri, B., & Clark, C. H. (2020). Tissue mimicking materials for imaging and therapy phantoms: A review. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 65(23), 23TR01. doi:10.1088\/1361-6560\/abbd17

    <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Mora, P., Pfeiffer, D., Zhang, G., Bosmans, H., Delis, H., Razi, Z., Arreola, M., & Tsapaki, V. (2021). The IAEA remote and automated quality control methodology for radiography and mammography. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 22(11), 126\u2013142. doi:10.1002\/acm2.13431<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Gennaro, G., Zanardo, M., Ambrogi, F., & Sardanelli, F. (2025). Phantom studies in medical imaging (PSMI): A guide with recommendations and checklist. European Radiology Experimental, 9<\/em>(1), Article 105. <\/a>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s41747-025-00641-7<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Aldehani, W., Jawali, A., Savaridas, S. L., Huang, Z., & Manfredi, L. (2025). Tissue-mimicking materials for breast ultrasound elastography phantoms: A systematic review. Polymers, 17<\/em>(4), 521. <\/a>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/polym17040521<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Nakashima, J., & Duong, H. (2023). Radiographic image production and quality. In StatPearls<\/em>. StatPearls Publishing. <\/a>https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/books\/NBK553145\/<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. Ma, X., Figl, M., Unger, E., Buschmann, M., & Homolka, P. (2022). X-ray attenuation of bone, soft and adipose tissue in CT from 70 to 140 kV and comparison with 3D printable additive manufacturing materials. Scientific Reports, 12<\/em>(1), 14580. <\/a>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41598-022-18741-4<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. Min, K. H., Kim, D. H., Kim, K. H., Seo, J.-H., & Pack, S. P. (2024). Biomimetic scaffolds of calcium-based materials for bone regeneration. Biomimetics, 9<\/em>(9), 511. <\/a>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/biomimetics9090511<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  8. Stassen, T. H. A., Lustermans, D., Daenen, L. H. B. A., de Freitas Nascimento, L., Verhaegen, F., & Paiva Fonseca, G. (2026). A standardized workflow for the development and manufacturing of tissue-equivalent anthropomorphic phantoms for radiotherapy using 3D-printing. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 71<\/em>(12), 125024. <\/a>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/ae794c<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  9. White, D. R., Martin, R. J., & Darlison, R. (1977). Epoxy resin based tissue substitutes. The British Journal of Radiology, 50<\/em>(599), 814\u2013821. <\/a>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1259\/0007-1285-50-599-814<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  10. Tochaikul, G., Tanadchangsaeng, N., Panaksri, A., & Moonkum, N. (2025). Enhancing radiation shielding capabilities with epoxy-resin composites reinforced with coral-derived calcium carbonate fillers. Polymers, 17<\/em>(1), 113. <\/a>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/polym17010113<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  11. Khallouqi, A., El Rhazouani, O., Sekkat, H., Halimi, A., & Madkouri, Y. (2025). Evaluating backscatter factor variations in diagnostic radiology using different phantom materials. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 57<\/em>(8), 103593. <\/a>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.net.2025.103593<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  12. Sekkat, H., Khallouqi, A., El Rhazouani, O., Madkouri, Y., & Halimi, A. (2025). Assessing radiological properties of novel tissue equivalent materials for heterogeneous pediatric head phantom: Experimental insights and Monte Carlo simulations. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 57<\/em>(7), 103525. <\/a>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.net.2025.103525<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  13. Alkhateeb, S. (2019) Mimicking Bone Chemical Composition Using Economical Materials for X-Ray Imaging Quality Assurance and Educational Purposes. Open Journal of Biophysics<\/em>, 9<\/strong>, 83-87. doi: <\/a>10.4236\/ojbiphy.2019.92006<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  14. Christman, R. A., Oehler, M., Strugielski, C. F., & Williamson, D. E. (2016). Film\u2013screen radiography. In R. A. Christman (Ed.), Foot and ankle radiology<\/em> (2nd ed.). Elsevier .https:\/\/musculoskeletalkey.com\/2-film-screen-radiography\/<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  15. Darafsheh, A., & Ghaznavi, H. (2025). A review on radiochromic film dosimetry in radiation therapy. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 26<\/em>(12), Article e70365. <\/a>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/acm2.70365<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  16. Dance, D. R., Christofides, S., Maidment, A. D. A., McLean, I. D., & Ng, K. H. (Eds.). (2014). Diagnostic radiology physics: A handbook for teachers and students<\/em>. International Atomic Energy Agency.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  17. Fujisawa, M., Sota, M., Haga, Y., Tanaka, S., Kataoka, N., Kato, T., Kaga, Y., Abe, M., Suzuki, M., Inaba, Y., & Chida, K. (2025). Real-Time Monitoring of Occupational Radiation Exposure in Nuclear Medicine Technologists: An Initial Study. Applied Sciences<\/em>, 15<\/em>(20), 11008. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/app152011008

    <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  18. Loba Chemie Pvt. Ltd. (2024). Calcium hydroxide AR: Safety data sheet<\/em> (Reference No. 02470; Version1.0).https:\/\/www.lobachemie.com\/lab-chemical-msds\/MSDS-CALCIUM-HYDROXIDE-CASNO-1305-62-02470-EN.aspx<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  19. Galbraith, S., Daniel, J. A., & Vissel, B. (2010). A study of clustered data and approaches to its analysis. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30<\/em>(32), 10601\u201310608. <\/a>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1523\/JNEUROSCI.0362-10.2010<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  20. Sch\u00fcltke, E. (2025). Biomimetic Phantoms in X-Ray-Based Radiotherapy Research: A Narrative Review. Biomimetics<\/em>, 10<\/em>(12), 794. <\/a>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/biomimetics10120794<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  21. \u0160romov\u00e1, V., Sobola, D., & Kaspar, P. (2023). A brief review of bone cell function and importance. Cells, 12<\/em>(21), Article 2576. <\/a>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/cells12212576<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  22. Badiuk, S. R., Sasaki, D. K., & Rickey, D. W. (2022). An anthropomorphic maxillofacial phantom using 3-dimensional printing, polyurethane rubber and epoxy resin for dental imaging and dosimetry. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 51<\/em>(1), 20200323. <\/a>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1259\/dmfr.20200323<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  23. Bansal, G. J. (2006). Digital radiography: A comparison with modern conventional imaging. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 82<\/em>(969), 425\u2013428. <\/a>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/pgmj.2005.038448<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  24. Lakens, D. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t<\/em> tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8<\/em>(4), 355\u2013362. <\/a>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1948550617697177<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    INTRODUCTION Medical imaging phantoms are physical models designed to reproduce selected anatomical, physical, or radiological characteristics of the human body. They provide stable and repeatable test objects for radiographic education, equipment quality assurance, dosimetry, image-quality evaluation, protocol optimization, and research [1, 2]. Because a phantom can be exposed repeatedly without biological risk, it is particularly […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[38],"tags":[110,109,108,111,112],"article-archive":[37],"class_list":["post-1286","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-original-review-article","tag-anthropomorphic-phantom","tag-calcium-hydroxide","tag-epoxy-resin","tag-general-radiography","tag-optical-density","article-archive-volume-5-issue-1-2026","entry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/academicsociety.org\/medicalhealthjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1286","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/academicsociety.org\/medicalhealthjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/academicsociety.org\/medicalhealthjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/academicsociety.org\/medicalhealthjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/academicsociety.org\/medicalhealthjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1286"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/academicsociety.org\/medicalhealthjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1286\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1288,"href":"https:\/\/academicsociety.org\/medicalhealthjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1286\/revisions\/1288"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/academicsociety.org\/medicalhealthjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/academicsociety.org\/medicalhealthjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1286"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/academicsociety.org\/medicalhealthjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1286"},{"taxonomy":"article-archive","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/academicsociety.org\/medicalhealthjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article-archive?post=1286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}