Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42688631
Clinical Efficacy and Accuracy of 3D-Printed Medical Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Veeraraghavan Vishnu Priya, Surapaneni Krishna Mohan, Mosaddad Seyed Ali · Health science reports · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.1002/hsr2.73163
Findings
Population Patients undergoing surgery across orthopedic and head and neck procedures
2 findings
| 3D-printed models, guides, templates or customized plates | Conventional methods | Operative time (minutes) | MD -24.88 [-62.45, 12.70] GRADE not reported 8 studies · 335 participants |
| 3D-printed models, guides, templates or customized plates | Conventional methods | Intraoperative blood loss (mL) | MD -61.55 [-82.62, -40.49] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 285 participants |
Included primary studies 15
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahrberg 2016 Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a… PMID:26070435 | 2016 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Chen 2015 Clinical Use of 3D Printing Guide Plate in Posterior Lumbar Pedicle Screw Fixation. PMID:26681388 | 2015 | this review only | Operative time (minutes); Intraoperative blood loss (mL) | not extracted yet |
| de Farias 2014 Use of prototyping in preoperative planning for patients with head and neck tumors. PMID:24478238 | 2014 | this review only | Operative time (minutes) | not extracted yet |
| Duan 2024 Study on the efficacy of 3D printing technology combined with customized plates for the treatment of complex tibial plateau fractures. PMID:39267139 | 2024 | this review only | Operative time (minutes); Intraoperative blood loss (mL) | not extracted yet |
| Gan 2015 Accuracy and efficacy of osteotomy in total knee arthroplasty with patient-specific navigational template. PMID:26550129 | 2015 | this review only | Operative time (minutes); Intraoperative blood loss (mL) | not extracted yet |
| Goh 2015 Novel 3D polycaprolactone scaffold for ridge preservation--a pilot randomised controlled clinical trial. PMID:25263527 | 2015 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Hu 2024 3D printing assisted MIPO for treatment of complex middle-proximal humeral shaft fractures. PMID:38267894 | 2024 | this review only | Operative time (minutes); Intraoperative blood loss (mL) | not extracted yet |
| Lu 2025 Effects of personalized 3D-printed blocks in total knee arthroplasty and revision surgery for massive bone defects: a single-center… PMID:39772878 | 2025 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Shen 2019 Application of 3D printed osteotomy guide plate-assisted total knee arthroplasty in treatment of valgus knee deformity. PMID:31639044 | 2019 | this review only | Operative time (minutes); Intraoperative blood loss (mL) | not extracted yet |
| Shuang 2016 Treatment of Intercondylar Humeral Fractures With 3D-Printed Osteosynthesis Plates. PMID:26817880 | 2016 | this review only | Operative time (minutes) | not extracted yet |
| Stephens 2016 3-D bone models to improve treatment initiation among patients with osteoporosis: A randomised controlled pilot trial. PMID:26513581 | 2016 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Vercruyssen 2014 A randomized clinical trial comparing guided implant surgery (bone- or mucosa-supported) with mental navigation or the use of a… PMID:24460748 | 2014 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Verniani 2024 A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial on Press, Block Lithium Disilicate, and 3D Printed Partial Crowns in Posterior Teeth: One-Year Recall DOI:10.3390/prosthesis6040064 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Yan 2024 3D-printed model is a useful addition in orthopedic resident education for the understanding of tibial plateau fractures. PMID:39438597 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| You 2016 Application of 3D printing technology on the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures (Neer3-part and 4-part) in old people. PMID:27521179 | 2016 | this review only | Operative time (minutes); Intraoperative blood loss (mL) | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.
| Review | Shared studies | Jaccard |
|---|---|---|
| Comparative evaluation of marginal and internal fit of multi-unit fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of… (2026) | 1 | 0.04 |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Patients receiving medical or dental treatment involving clinical devices | Patients in orthopedics, dentistry, prosthodontics, head and neck surgery and osteoporosis care (n=15 studies) |
| Intervention | 3D-printed devices such as patient-specific implants, prostheses, surgical guides, and biomedical scaffolds | 3D-printed models, guides, templates, custom plates, crowns, scaffolds and spacers (n=15) |
| Comparison | Conventional non-3D-printed treatment methods or devices | Conventional surgery or devices, navigation, imaging, standard care, or no comparator (n=15) |
| Outcomes | Clinical efficacy, procedural accuracy, safety, patient satisfaction, treatment time | Operative time (n=8 pooled), intraoperative blood loss (n=6 pooled), accuracy, fit, function, complications (narrative) |
| Study designs | Randomized controlled trials, observational studies, retrospective studies, cohort and case-control studies | RCTs (n=9 per RoB 2), non-randomized studies (n=6 per ROBINS-I) |
| Timing | Not specified | Follow-up from 1 month to 28 months where reported |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | No | No | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | No | Partial Yes | no |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Yes | no |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: Yes | RCT: Yes · NRSI: Yes | yes |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: No · NRSI: No | RCT: No · NRSI: No | yes |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |