ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2025
Evaluating Effectiveness, Safety, and Patient Outcomes of 3D Printing in Orthopedic Implant Design and Customization: A PRISMA-Complaint Systematic Review.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Application of Surgical Guides in MARPE: Observational Research.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- 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
- Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, DEB-TACE, and 3D-printed prosthesis for primary pelvic pleomorphic undifferentiated sarcoma: a case report.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Efficacy, precision and ease of 3D-printed versus conventional endodontic instruments compared to conventional stainless steel and nickel-titanium files in root canal preparation.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Three-dimensional assisted techniques vs. conventional fixation in complex periarticular fractures: a systematic review of outcomes and complications.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The advent of 3D printing technology has revolutionized the field of orthopedics, particularly in the design and customization of implants. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and patient outcomes associated with the use of 3D-printed custom implants for various orthopedic conditions. Materials and Methods: The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42025648097). The literature search analyzed studies from multiple databases, focusing on parameters, such as implant fit, functionality, surgical outcomes, and patient satisfaction. Studies were selected based on their relevance to 3D-printed custom implants for various orthopedic conditions. Results: The analysis included data from numerous studies, highlighting several key findings, such as (a) customization: 3D-printed implants provide a highly personalized fit that conforms precisely to individual anatomies, enhancing biomechanical performance and reducing complications, (b) surgical outcomes: The use of 3D-printed implants significantly reduces surgery time and intraoperative errors due to advanced imaging and meticulous pre-operative planning, (c) patient satisfaction: Patients reported higher satisfaction rates due to improved implant stability and functionality, leading to quicker recovery and a better quality of life post-surgery, and (d) challenges: The high costs of 3D printing technology and concerns about the long-term durability and performance of 3D-printed implants remain significant barriers to widespread adoption. Conclusion: The integration of 3D printing technology into orthopedic implant design represents a transformative advancement, offering significant improvements in patient-specific outcomes and surgical precision. Despite financial and technical challenges, the potential benefits of delivering personalized, high-quality care are substantial. Future research should focus on long-term follow-up studies to provide comprehensive evidence on the safety and durability of 3D-printed implants, and efforts should be made to reduce production costs and streamline manufacturing processes to enhance accessibility. Level of Evidence: Systematic review and meta-analysis, Level II.
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.