ArticleCureus2024
Breaking the Mould: Comparing 3D-Printed and Composite Bone Models in Orthopaedic Training.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three-Dimensional Printing in Pediatric Orthopaedics: Cost Analysis and Emerging Applications.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Review
- Mechanical validation of 3D-printed orthopaedic surrogate models for screw insertion training.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Article
- To infinity and beyond: the promise of data-driven 3D printing of hernia mesh - a primer for surgeons.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim Synthetic composite bone models (reinforced solid foam) have become the standardised material used in practical orthopaedic education. However, with discussions regarding whether composite foam truly replicates human bone, there has been a drive to explore other available models. Three-dimensional (3D) printing has risen in both popularity and availability, providing a new option in the creation of anatomically accurate bone models. We designed a pilot study to assess whether a new formulation of synthetic bone provides the same tactile feedback that is essential for training purposes. Method Orthopaedic trainees of various grades across two London hospital trusts were invited to participate in a distal radius fixation workshop. As part of the workshop, trainees were asked to complete the following three tasks on the two different models: Kirschner-wire driving, pilot hole drilling and screw insertion. Participants were blinded in this trial and not informed which model was made via 3D printing or the conventional composite bone. Following completion, participants provided feedback on tactile feedback for each task on each model. Results Twenty-three orthopaedic trainees participated in the workshop, with overall majority agreement in all clinical skills that the 3D-printed model provided better tactile feedback. Three-dimensional models were rated superior in K-wire driving (mean score 7.39 vs 4.82; p<0.001) and pilot hole drilling (7.87 vs 4.96; p<0.001), with no significant difference in screw insertion. Qualitative feedback from testers noted a more anatomical representation of the 3D-printed bone, in addition to an overall better representation of the corticomedullary junction. Conclusion Overall, 3D printed models provide a new high-fidelity and sustainable option when seeking bone models for modern-day orthopaedic training. At present composite bone remains the standard for workshops. However, with the growing availability of 3D-printing models, and as supported by this study, they crucially provide the medium for future orthopaedic surgeons to learn and gain confidence.
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.