Three-dimensional printed anatomical models (3DPAMs) seem to be a suitable tool due to their educational value and feasibility. The purpose of this review is to describe and analyze the methods used to create 3DPAM for teaching human anatomy and to evaluate its pedagogical contribution.
An electronic search was conducted in PubMed using the following terms: education, school, learning, teaching, training, teaching, education, three-dimensional, 3D, 3-dimensional, printing, printing, printing, anatomy, anatomy, anatomy, and anatomy. . Findings included study characteristics, model design, morphological assessment, educational performance, strengths and weaknesses.
Among the 68 selected articles, the largest number of studies focused on the cranial region (33 articles); 51 articles mention bone printing. In 47 articles, 3DPAM was developed based on computed tomography. Five printing processes are listed. Plastics and their derivatives were used in 48 studies. Each design ranges in price from $1.25 to $2,800. Thirty-seven studies compared 3DPAM with reference models. Thirty-three articles examined educational activities. The main benefits are visual and tactile quality, learning efficiency, repeatability, customizability and agility, time savings, integration of functional anatomy, better mental rotation capabilities, knowledge retention and teacher/student satisfaction. The main disadvantages are related to the design: consistency, lack of detail or transparency, colors that are too bright, long print times and high cost.
This systematic review shows that 3DPAM is cost-effective and effective for teaching anatomy. More realistic models require the use of more expensive 3D printing technologies and longer design times, which will significantly increase the overall cost. The key is to select the appropriate imaging method. From a pedagogical point of view, 3DPAM is an effective tool for teaching anatomy, with a positive impact on learning outcomes and satisfaction. The teaching effect of 3DPAM is best when it reproduces complex anatomical regions and students use it early in their medical training.
Dissection of animal corpses has been performed since ancient Greece and is one of the main methods of teaching anatomy. Cadaveric dissections performed during practical training are used in the theoretical curriculum of university medical students and are currently considered the gold standard for the study of anatomy [1,2,3,4,5]. However, there are many barriers to the use of human cadaveric specimens, prompting the search for new training tools [6, 7]. Some of these new tools include augmented reality, digital tools, and 3D printing. According to a recent literature review by Santos et al. [8] In terms of the value of these new technologies for teaching anatomy, 3D printing appears to be one of the most important resources, both in terms of educational value for students and in terms of feasibility of implementation [4,9,10].
3D printing is not new. The first patents related to this technology date back to 1984: A Le Méhauté, O De Witte and JC André in France, and three weeks later C Hull in the USA. Since then, the technology has continued to evolve and its use has expanded into many areas. For example, NASA printed the first object beyond Earth in 2014 [11]. The medical field has also adopted this new tool, thereby increasing the desire to develop personalized medicine [12].
Many authors have demonstrated the benefits of using 3D printed anatomical models (3DPAM) in medical education [10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. When teaching human anatomy, non-pathological and anatomically normal models are needed. Some reviews have examined pathological or medical/surgical training models [8, 20, 21]. To develop a hybrid model for teaching human anatomy that incorporates new tools such as 3D printing, we conducted a systematic review to describe and analyze how 3D printed objects are created for teaching human anatomy and how students evaluate the effectiveness of learning using these 3D objects .
This systematic literature review was conducted in June 2022 using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines without time restrictions [22].
Inclusion criteria were all research papers using 3DPAM in anatomy teaching/learning. Literature reviews, letters, or articles focusing on pathological models, animal models, archaeological models, and medical/surgical training models were excluded. Only articles published in English were selected. Articles without available online abstracts were excluded. Articles that included multiple models, at least one of which was anatomically normal or had minor pathology not affecting teaching value, were included.
A literature search was conducted in the electronic database PubMed (National Library of Medicine, NCBI) to identify relevant studies published up to June 2022. Use the following search terms: education, school, teaching, teaching, learning, teaching, education, three-dimensional, 3D, 3D, printing, printing, printing, anatomy, anatomy, anatomy and anatomy. A single query was executed: (((education[Title/Abstract] OR school[Title/Abstract] ORlearning[Title/Abstract] OR teaching[Title/Abstract] OR training[Title/Abstract] OReach[Title/Abstract] ] OR Education [Title/Abstract]) AND (Three Dimensions [Title] OR 3D [Title] OR 3D [Title])) AND (Print [Title] OR Print [Title] OR Print [Title])) AND (Anatomy) [Title] ]/abstract] or anatomy [title/abstract] or anatomy [title/abstract] or anatomy [title/abstract]). Additional articles were identified by manually searching the PubMed database and reviewing references of other scientific articles. No date restrictions were applied, but the “Person” filter was used.
All retrieved titles and abstracts were screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria by two authors (EBR and AL), and any study not meeting all eligibility criteria was excluded. Full-text publications of the remaining studies were retrieved and reviewed by three authors (EBR, EBE and AL). When necessary, disagreements in the selection of articles were resolved by a fourth person (LT). Publications that met all inclusion criteria were included in this review.
Data extraction was performed independently by two authors (EBR and AL) under the supervision of a third author (LT).
- Model design data: anatomical regions, specific anatomical parts, initial model for 3D printing, acquisition method, segmentation and modeling software, 3D printer type, material type and quantity, printing scale, color, printing cost.
- Morphological assessment of models: models used for comparison, medical assessment of experts/teachers, number of evaluators, type of assessment.
- Teaching 3D model: assessment of student knowledge, assessment method, number of students, number of comparison groups, randomization of students, education/type of student.
418 studies were identified in MEDLINE, and 139 articles were excluded by the “human” filter. After reviewing titles and abstracts, 103 studies were selected for full-text reading. 34 articles were excluded because they were either pathological models (9 articles), medical/surgical training models (4 articles), animal models (4 articles), 3D radiological models (1 article) or were not original scientific articles (16 chapters). ). A total of 68 articles were included in the review. Figure 1 presents the selection process as a flow chart.
Flow chart summarizing the identification, screening, and inclusion of articles in this systematic review
All studies were published between 2014 and 2022, with an average publication year of 2019. Among the 68 included articles, 33 (49%) studies were descriptive and experimental, 17 (25%) were purely experimental, and 18 (26%) were experimental. Purely descriptive. Of the 50 (73%) experimental studies, 21 (31%) used randomization. Only 34 studies (50%) included statistical analyses. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of each study.
33 articles (48%) examined the head region, 19 articles (28%) examined the thoracic region, 17 articles (25%) examined the abdominopelvic region, and 15 articles (22%) examined the extremities. Fifty-one articles (75%) mentioned 3D printed bones as anatomical models or multi-slice anatomical models.
Regarding the source models or files used to develop 3DPAM, 23 articles (34%) mentioned the use of patient data, 20 articles (29%) mentioned the use of cadaveric data, and 17 articles (25%) mentioned the use of databases. use, and 7 studies (10%) did not disclose the source of the documents used.
47 studies (69%) developed 3DPAM based on computed tomography, and 3 studies (4%) reported the use of microCT. 7 articles (10%) projected 3D objects using optical scanners, 4 articles (6%) using MRI, and 1 article (1%) using cameras and microscopes. 14 articles (21%) did not mention the source of the 3D model design source files. 3D files are created with an average spatial resolution of less than 0.5 mm. The optimal resolution is 30 μm [80] and the maximum resolution is 1.5 mm [32].
Sixty different software applications (segmentation, modeling, design or printing) were used. Mimics (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) was used most often (14 studies, 21%), followed by MeshMixer (Autodesk, San Rafael, CA) (13 studies, 19%), Geomagic (3D System, MO, NC, Leesville). (10 studies, 15%), 3D Slicer (Slicer Developer Training, Boston, MA) (9 studies, 13%), Blender (Blender Foundation, Amsterdam, Netherlands) (8 studies, 12%) and CURA (Geldemarsen, Netherlands) (7 studies, 10%).
Sixty-seven different printer models and five printing processes are mentioned. FDM (Fused Deposition Modeling) technology was used in 26 products (38%), material blasting in 13 products (19%) and finally binder blasting (11 products, 16%). The least used technologies are stereolithography (SLA) (5 articles, 7%) and selective laser sintering (SLS) (4 articles, 6%). The most commonly used printer (7 articles, 10%) is the Connex 500 (Stratasys, Rehovot, Israel) [27, 30, 32, 36, 45, 62, 65].
When specifying the materials used to make 3DPAM (51 articles, 75%), 48 studies (71%) used plastics and their derivatives. The main materials used were PLA (polylactic acid) (n = 20, 29%), resin (n = 9, 13%) and ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) (7 types, 10%). 23 articles (34%) examined 3DPAM made from multiple materials, 36 articles (53%) presented 3DPAM made from only one material, and 9 articles (13%) did not specify a material.
Twenty-nine articles (43%) reported print ratios ranging from 0.25:1 to 2:1, with an average of 1:1. Twenty-five articles (37%) used a 1:1 ratio. 28 3DPAMs (41%) consisted of multiple colors, and 9 (13%) were dyed after printing [43, 46, 49, 54, 58, 59, 65, 69, 75].
Thirty-four articles (50%) mentioned costs. 9 articles (13%) mentioned the cost of 3D printers and raw materials. Printers range in price from $302 to $65,000. When specified, model prices range from $1.25 to $2,800; these extremes correspond to skeletal specimens [47] and high-fidelity retroperitoneal models [48]. Table 2 summarizes the model data for each included study.
Thirty-seven studies (54%) compared the 3DAPM to a reference model. Among these studies, the most common comparator was an anatomical reference model, used in 14 articles (38%), plastinated preparations in 6 articles (16%), and plastinated preparations in 6 articles (16%). Use of virtual reality, computed tomography imaging one 3DPAM in 5 articles (14%), another 3DPAM in 3 articles (8%), serious games in 1 article (3%), radiographs in 1 article (3%), business models in 1 article (3%) and augmented reality in 1 article (3%). Thirty-four (50%) studies assessed 3DPAM. Fifteen (48%) studies detailed raters’ experiences (Table 3). 3DPAM was performed by surgeons or attending physicians in 7 studies (47%), anatomical specialists in 6 studies (40%), students in 3 studies (20%), teachers (discipline not specified) in 3 studies (20%) for assessment and one more evaluator in the article (7%). The average number of evaluators is 14 (minimum 2, maximum 30). Thirty-three studies (49%) assessed 3DPAM morphology qualitatively, and 10 studies (15%) assessed 3DPAM morphology quantitatively. Of the 33 studies that used qualitative assessments, 16 used purely descriptive assessments (48%), 9 used tests/ratings/surveys (27%), and 8 used Likert scales (24%). Table 3 summarizes the morphological assessments of the models in each included study.
Thirty-three (48%) articles examined and compared the effectiveness of teaching 3DPAM to students. Of these studies, 23 (70%) articles assessed student satisfaction, 17 (51%) used Likert scales, and 6 (18%) used other methods. Twenty-two articles (67%) assessed student learning through knowledge testing, of which 10 (30%) used pretests and/or posttests. Eleven studies (33%) used multiple-choice questions and tests to assess students’ knowledge, and five studies (15%) used image labeling/anatomical identification. An average of 76 students participated in each study (minimum 8, maximum 319). Twenty-four studies (72%) had a control group, of which 20 (60%) used randomization. In contrast, one study (3%) randomly assigned anatomical models to 10 different students. On average, 2.6 groups were compared (minimum 2, maximum 10). Twenty-three studies (70%) involved medical students, of which 14 (42%) were first-year medical students. Six (18%) studies involved residents, 4 (12%) dental students, and 3 (9%) science students. Six studies (18%) implemented and evaluated autonomous learning using 3DPAM. Table 4 summarizes the results of the 3DPAM teaching effectiveness assessment for each included study.
The main benefits of using 3DPAM as a teaching tool for teaching normal human anatomy reported by the authors are visual and tactile characteristics, including realism [55, 67], accuracy [44, 50, 72, 85], and consistency variability [34]. , 45, 48, 64], color and transparency [28, 45], reliability [24, 56, 73], educational effect [16, 32, 35, 39, 52, 57, 63, 69, 79], cost [ 27, 41, 44, 45, 48, 51, 60, 64, 80, 81, 83], reproducibility [80], possibility of improvement or personalization [28, 30, 36, 45, 48, 51, 53, 59, 61 , 67, 80], the ability to manipulate students [30, 49], saving teaching time [61, 80], ease of storage [61], the ability to integrate functional anatomy or create specific structures [51, 53], 67], rapid design of models skeleton [81], the ability to collaboratively create and use house models [49, 60, 71], improved mental rotation abilities [23] and knowledge retention [32], as well as in the teacher [25, 63] and student satisfaction [25, 63]. 45, 46, 52, 52, 57, 63, 66, 69, 84].
The main disadvantages are related to design: rigidity [80], consistency [28, 62], lack of detail or transparency [28, 30, 34, 45, 48, 62, 64, 81], colors too bright [45]. and the fragility of the floor[71]. Other disadvantages include loss of information [30, 76], long time required for image segmentation [36, 52, 57, 58, 74], printing time [57, 63, 66, 67], lack of anatomical variability [25], and cost . High[48].
This systematic review summarizes 68 articles published over 9 years and highlights the scientific community’s interest in 3DPAM as a tool for teaching normal human anatomy. Each anatomical region was studied and 3D printed. Of these articles, 37 articles compared 3DPAM with other models, and 33 articles assessed the pedagogical relevance of 3DPAM for students.
Given the differences in the design of anatomical 3D printing studies, we did not consider it appropriate to conduct a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis published in 2020 mainly focused on anatomical knowledge tests after training without analyzing the technical and technological aspects of 3DPAM design and production [10].
The head region is the most studied, probably because the complexity of its anatomy makes it more difficult for students to depict this anatomical region in three-dimensional space compared to the limbs or torso. CT is by far the most commonly used imaging modality. This technique is widely used, especially in medical settings, but has limited spatial resolution and low soft tissue contrast. These limitations make CT scans unsuitable for segmentation and modeling of the nervous system. On the other hand, computed tomography is better suited for bone tissue segmentation/modeling; Bone/soft tissue contrast helps to complete these steps before 3D printing anatomical models. On the other hand, microCT is considered the reference technology in terms of spatial resolution in bone imaging [70]. Optical scanners or MRI can also be used to obtain images. Higher resolution prevents smoothing of bone surfaces and preserves the subtlety of anatomical structures [59]. The choice of model also affects the spatial resolution: for example, plasticization models have a lower resolution [45]. Graphic designers have to create custom 3D models, which increases costs ($25 to $150 per hour) [43]. Obtaining high-quality .STL files is not enough to create high-quality anatomical models. It is necessary to determine printing parameters, such as the orientation of the anatomical model on the printing plate [29]. Some authors suggest that advanced printing technologies such as SLS should be used wherever possible to improve the accuracy of 3DPAM [38]. The production of 3DPAM requires professional assistance; the most sought-after specialists are engineers [72], radiologists, [75], graphic designers [43] and anatomists [25, 28, 51, 57, 76, 77].
Segmentation and modeling software are important factors in obtaining accurate anatomical models, but the cost of these software packages and their complexity hinder their use. Several studies have compared the use of different software packages and printing technologies, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of each technology [68]. In addition to modeling software, printing software compatible with the selected printer is also required; some authors prefer to use online 3D printing [75]. If enough 3D objects are printed, the investment can lead to financial returns [72].
Plastic is by far the most commonly used material. Its wide range of textures and colors makes it the material of choice for 3DPAM. Some authors have praised its high strength compared to traditional cadaveric or plated models [24, 56, 73]. Some plastics even have bending or stretching properties. For example, Filaflex with FDM technology can stretch up to 700%. Some authors consider it the material of choice for muscle, tendon and ligament replication [63]. On the other hand, two studies have raised questions about fiber orientation during printing. In fact, muscle fiber orientation, insertion, innervation, and function are critical in muscle modeling [33].
Surprisingly, few studies mention the scale of printing. Since many people consider the 1:1 ratio to be standard, the author may have chosen not to mention it. Although scaling up would be useful for directed learning in large groups, the feasibility of scaling has not yet been explored, especially with growing class sizes and the physical size of the model being an important factor. Of course, full-size scales make it easier to locate and communicate various anatomical elements to the patient, which may explain why they are often used.
Of the many printers available on the market, those that use PolyJet (material inkjet or binder inkjet) technology to provide high-definition color and multi-material (and therefore multi-texture) printing cost between US$20,000 and US$250,000 ( https://www.aniwaa.com/). This high cost may limit the promotion of 3DPAM in medical schools. In addition to the cost of the printer, the cost of materials required for inkjet printing is higher than for SLA or FDM printers [68]. Prices for SLA or FDM printers are also more affordable, ranging from €576 to €4,999 in the articles listed in this review. According to Tripodi and colleagues, each skeletal part can be printed for US$1.25 [47]. Eleven studies concluded that 3D printing is cheaper than plasticization or commercial models [24, 27, 41, 44, 45, 48, 51, 60, 63, 80, 81, 83]. Moreover, these commercial models are designed to provide patient information without sufficient detail for anatomy teaching [80]. These commercial models are considered inferior to 3DPAM [44]. It is worth noting that, in addition to the printing technology used, the final cost is proportional to the scale and therefore the final size of the 3DPAM [48]. For these reasons, the full-size scale is preferred [37].
Only one study compared 3DPAM with commercially available anatomical models [72]. Cadaveric samples are the most commonly used comparator for 3DPAM. Despite their limitations, cadaveric models remain a valuable tool for teaching anatomy. A distinction must be made between autopsy, dissection and dry bone. Based on training tests, two studies showed that 3DPAM was significantly more effective than plastinated dissection [16, 27]. One study compared one hour of training using 3DPAM (lower extremity) with one hour of dissection of the same anatomical region [78]. There were no significant differences between the two teaching methods. It is likely that there is little research on this topic because such comparisons are difficult to make. Dissection is a time-consuming preparation for students. Sometimes dozens of hours of preparation are required, depending on what is being prepared. A third comparison can be made with dry bones. A study by Tsai and Smith found that test scores were significantly better in the group using 3DPAM [51, 63]. Chen and colleagues noted that students using 3D models performed better on identifying structures (skulls), but there was no difference in MCQ scores [69]. Finally, Tanner and colleagues demonstrated better post-test results in this group using 3DPAM of the pterygopalatine fossa [46]. Other new teaching tools were identified in this literature review. The most common among them are augmented reality, virtual reality and serious games [43]. According to Mahrous and colleagues, preference for anatomical models depends on the number of hours students play video games [31]. On the other hand, a major drawback of new anatomy teaching tools is haptic feedback, especially for purely virtual tools [48].
Most studies evaluating the new 3DPAM have used pretests of knowledge. These pretests help avoid bias in the assessment. Some authors, before conducting experimental studies, exclude all students who scored above the average on the preliminary test [40]. Among the biases Garas and colleagues mentioned were the color of the model and the selection of volunteers in the student class [61]. Staining facilitates identification of anatomical structures. Chen and colleagues established strict experimental conditions with no initial differences between groups and the study was blinded to the maximum extent possible [69]. Lim and colleagues recommend that the post-test assessment be completed by a third party to avoid bias in the assessment [16]. Some studies have used Likert scales to assess the feasibility of 3DPAM. This instrument is suitable for assessing satisfaction, but there are still important biases to be aware of [86].
The educational relevance of 3DPAM was primarily assessed among medical students, including first-year medical students, in 14 of 33 studies. In their pilot study, Wilk and colleagues reported that medical students believed that 3D printing should be included in their anatomy learning [87]. 87% of students surveyed in the Cercenelli study believed that the second year of study was the best time to use 3DPAM [84]. Tanner and colleagues’ results also showed that students performed better if they had never studied the field [46]. These data suggest that the first year of medical school is the optimal time to incorporate 3DPAM into anatomy teaching. Ye’s meta-analysis supported this idea [18]. Across the 27 articles included in the study, there were significant differences in the performance of 3DPAM compared with traditional models in medical students, but not in residents.
3DPAM as a learning tool improves academic achievement [16, 35, 39, 52, 57, 63, 69, 79], long-term knowledge retention [32], and student satisfaction [25, 45, 46, 52, 57, 63, 66]. , 69 , 84]. Panels of experts also found these models useful [37, 42, 49, 81, 82], and two studies found teacher satisfaction with 3DPAM [25, 63]. Of all sources, Backhouse and colleagues consider 3D printing to be the best alternative to traditional anatomical models [49]. In their first meta-analysis, Ye and colleagues confirmed that students who received 3DPAM instructions had better post-test scores than students who received 2D or cadaver instructions [10]. However, they differentiated 3DPAM not by complexity, but simply by heart, nervous system, and abdominal cavity. In seven studies, 3DPAM did not outperform other models based on knowledge tests administered to students [32, 66, 69, 77, 78, 84]. In their meta-analysis, Salazar and colleagues concluded that the use of 3DPAM specifically improves understanding of complex anatomy [17]. This concept is consistent with Hitas’ letter to the editor [88]. Some anatomical areas considered less complex do not require the use of 3DPAM, whereas more complex anatomical areas (such as the neck or nervous system) would be a logical choice for 3DPAM. This concept may explain why some 3DPAMs are not considered superior to traditional models, especially when students lack knowledge in the domain where model performance is found to be superior. Thus, presenting a simple model to students who already have some knowledge of the subject (medical students or residents) is not helpful in improving student performance.
Of all the educational benefits listed, 11 studies emphasized the visual or tactile qualities of models [27,34,44,45,48,50,55,63,67,72,85], and 3 studies improved strength and durability (33, 50 -52, 63, 79, 85, 86). Other advantages are that students can manipulate the structures, teachers can save time, they are easier to preserve than cadavers, the project can be completed within 24 hours, it can be used as a homeschooling tool, and it can be used to teach large amounts of information. groups [30, 49, 60, 61, 80, 81]. Repeated 3D printing for high-volume anatomy teaching makes 3D printing models more cost-effective [26]. The use of 3DPAM can improve mental rotation capabilities [23] and improve the interpretation of cross-sectional images [23, 32]. Two studies found that students exposed to 3DPAM were more likely to undergo surgery [40, 74]. Metal connectors can be embedded to create the movement needed to study functional anatomy [51, 53], or models can be printed using trigger designs [67].
3D printing allows the creation of adjustable anatomical models by improving certain aspects during the modeling stage, [48, 80] creating a suitable base, [59] combining multiple models, [36] using transparency, (49) color, [45] or making certain internal structures visible [30]. Tripodi and colleagues used sculpting clay to complement their 3D printed bone models, emphasizing the value of co-created models as teaching tools [47]. In 9 studies, color was applied after printing [43, 46, 49, 54, 58, 59, 65, 69, 75], but students applied it only once [49]. Unfortunately, the study did not evaluate the quality of model training or the sequence of training. This should be considered in the context of anatomy education, as the benefits of blended learning and co-creation are well established [89]. To cope with the growing advertising activity, self-learning has been used many times to evaluate models [24, 26, 27, 32, 46, 69, 82].
One study concluded that the color of the plastic material was too bright[45], another study concluded that the model was too fragile[71], and two other studies indicated a lack of anatomical variability in the design of individual models[25, 45]. . Seven studies concluded that the anatomical detail of 3DPAM is insufficient [28, 34, 45, 48, 62, 63, 81].
For more detailed anatomical models of large and complex regions, such as the retroperitoneum or cervical region, the segmentation and modeling time is considered very long and the cost is very high (about US$2000) [27, 48]. Hojo and colleagues reported in their study that the creation of an anatomical model of the pelvis took 40 hours [42]. The longest segmentation time was 380 hours in a study by Weatherall and colleagues, in which multiple models were combined to create a complete pediatric airway model [36]. In nine studies, segmentation and printing time were considered disadvantages [36, 42, 57, 58, 74]. However, 12 studies criticized the physical properties of their models, particularly their consistency, [28, 62] lack of transparency, [30] fragility and monochromaticity, [71] lack of soft tissue, [66] or lack of detail [28, 34]. , 45, 48, 62, 63, 81]. These disadvantages can be overcome by increasing the segmentation or simulation time. Losing and retrieving relevant information was a problem faced by three teams [30, 74, 77]. According to patient reports, iodinated contrast agents did not provide optimal vascular visibility due to dose limitations [74]. Injection of a cadaveric model seems to be an ideal method that moves away from the principle of “as little as possible” and the limitations of the dose of contrast agent injected.
Unfortunately, many articles do not mention some key features of 3DPAM. Less than half of the articles explicitly stated whether their 3DPAM was tinted. Coverage of the scope of print was inconsistent (43% of articles), and only 34% mentioned the use of multiple media. These printing parameters are critical because they influence the learning properties of 3DPAM. Most articles do not provide sufficient information about the complexities of obtaining 3DPAM (design time, personnel qualifications, software costs, printing costs, etc.). This information is critical and should be considered before considering starting a project to develop a new 3DPAM.
This systematic review shows that designing and 3D printing normal anatomical models is feasible at low cost, especially when using FDM or SLA printers and inexpensive single-color plastic materials. However, these basic designs can be enhanced by adding color or adding designs in different materials. More realistic models (printed using multiple materials of different colors and textures to closely replicate the tactile qualities of a cadaver reference model) require more expensive 3D printing technologies and longer design times. This will significantly increase the overall cost. No matter which printing process is chosen, choosing the appropriate imaging method is key to 3DPAM’s success. The higher the spatial resolution, the more realistic the model becomes and can be used for advanced research. From a pedagogical point of view, 3DPAM is an effective tool for teaching anatomy, as evidenced by the knowledge tests administered to students and their satisfaction. The teaching effect of 3DPAM is best when it reproduces complex anatomical regions and students use it early in their medical training.
The datasets generated and/or analyzed in the current study are not publicly available due to language barriers but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Drake RL, Lowry DJ, Pruitt CM. A review of gross anatomy, microanatomy, neurobiology, and embryology courses in US medical school curricula. Anat Rec. 2002;269(2):118-22.
Ghosh S. K. Cadaveric dissection as an educational tool for anatomical science in the 21st century: Dissection as an educational tool. Analysis of science education. 2017;10(3):286–99.
Post time: Nov-13-2023