Review3D printing and additive manufacturing2023
The Quantitative Impact of Using 3D Printed Anatomical Models for Surgical Planning Optimization: Literature Review.
Review in 3D printing and additive manufacturing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated Global Positioning Layout (GPL) for accuracy assessment in CAD-CAM mandibular reconstruction - method introduction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- AI and 3D printing-assisted surgical exposure of impacted canines and tooth extraction in complex cleft lip and palate orthodontic treatment.Journal of surgical case reports · 2026Article
- 3D Printing Applications and Extended Realities in Medicine: Systematic Review.3D printing and additive manufacturing · 2026Article
- Applications of mixed reality with medical imaging for training and clinical practice.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024Review
- Lung Cancer Surgery in Octogenarians: Implications and Advantages of Artificial Intelligence in the Preoperative Assessment.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
3D printing has entered the medical field as a visualization tool that allows the manufacture of three-dimensional (3D) models that physically represent the anatomy of a patient in need of analysis to improve surgical results. This article analyzes the literature around reported study cases that make use of anatomical models for their surgical processes' planning, focusing on obtaining the quantitative results of each one of them. A search of case studies was carried out in the main medical databases such as PubMed, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, among others; to obtain the most relevant results of the 56 selected articles, the information of each study was analyzed and categorized. These articles presented figures and data about the benefits that are considered more representative to measure the positive impact of this technology. These benefits are summarized in variables such as the decrease in surgical time, greater accuracy in the diagnosis of pathology, blood loss reduction, and decreasing operating room costs; owed to an improvement in the surgery planning. It was found that in all the cases analyzed there was an improvement in the surgical results related to these variables, which were summarized in macro figures that combine this improvement quantitatively. In the analyzed studies, it was evident that there is great potential in the use of 3D printing for presurgical planning, being as the results of these analyzed interventions were better when using this technology. In addition, it was found that the results obtained initially, before applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, were mostly of a qualitative nature; expressing the perception of researchers regarding the positive use of this tool in the field and evidencing an opportunity for this research to focus on concrete and technical information to show in numerical terms the effectiveness of this tool, to demonstrate the cost-benefit that it has for the field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.