ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
A Feasibility Study of Splintage by 3D Scanning and Printing: Process and Evaluation of Current 3D Printing Material.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) scanning and printing technologies enable the production of personalized rehabilitation splints, yet challenges such as scanning artifacts in complex anatomical areas (e.g., finger webs), lengthy post-processing, long printing times, and material limitations (e.g., brittleness and poor breathability) hinder routine clinical adoption. This feasibility study developed and evaluated a clinician-accessible protocol for fabricating cock-up wrist splints using 3D scanning (Creaform GO!SCAN 50 with VXelements 4.1), modeling (Materialise Magics), and fused deposition modeling printing with polylactic acid (PLA) on a MakerBot Replicator+. Five healthy participants wore the splints for one week, with user satisfaction assessed via the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0; average total score 4.14/5, range 3.75-4.42) questionnaire. An experienced occupational therapist provided expert feedback. High satisfaction was reported for weight (4.6/5) and ease of use (4.6/5), confirming advantages over traditional thermoplastic splints in lightness and esthetics. However, lower scores for durability (3.6/5), comfort (3.6/5), and effectiveness (3.6/5) stemmed from PLA brittleness (cracking under load or overtightening), rough surfaces despite vapor polishing, inadequate ventilation causing moisture buildup, and fit issues (e.g., pressure points). Printing time averaged 9-19 h per splint. The protocol demonstrates proof-of-concept feasibility for clinicians with basic computer techniques, but material constraints and process refinements are required for reliable application in patient populations.
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.