Acta oto-laryngologica · 2026
Current status of 3D-printed human ossicles: a systematic review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Suleiman Elissa, Andersen Steven Arild Wuyts, Omari Adam
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) printed ossicle models may be useful in education and clinical practice, but accurate replication remains challenging.
AIM: To systematically review 3D-printed ossicles to map replication methods, factors influencing accuracy, and suggest needed innovations for higher accuracy.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception through June 2025. Two reviewers independently screened for final inclusion. Data on imaging, segmentation, 3D-printing-technology, materials, and post-processing were extracted. Educational studies were appraised using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. A panel of otosurgeons rated ossicle images for realism and visualization.
RESULTS: Sixty-five studies were included. Most models embedded ossicles in healthy temporal-bones (n = 46), with fewer pathological (n = 6) or stand-alone models (n = 13). Stapes was often absent or poorly reproduced, whereas malleus and incus were usually recognizable. Higher realism was associated with micro-CT or cone-beam-CT combined with stereolithography or PolyJet-printing. These photopolymer-based technologies allowed ossicle mobility in selected models. However, reporting of replication methods and anatomical accuracy was often limited, constraining deeper comparison between studies.
CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: Accurate ossicle replication is emerging but depends on optimization of imaging, processing, and 3D-printing. Standardized reporting is needed to improve comparison between methods and support use in training and reconstruction.
AIM: To systematically review 3D-printed ossicles to map replication methods, factors influencing accuracy, and suggest needed innovations for higher accuracy.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception through June 2025. Two reviewers independently screened for final inclusion. Data on imaging, segmentation, 3D-printing-technology, materials, and post-processing were extracted. Educational studies were appraised using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. A panel of otosurgeons rated ossicle images for realism and visualization.
RESULTS: Sixty-five studies were included. Most models embedded ossicles in healthy temporal-bones (n = 46), with fewer pathological (n = 6) or stand-alone models (n = 13). Stapes was often absent or poorly reproduced, whereas malleus and incus were usually recognizable. Higher realism was associated with micro-CT or cone-beam-CT combined with stereolithography or PolyJet-printing. These photopolymer-based technologies allowed ossicle mobility in selected models. However, reporting of replication methods and anatomical accuracy was often limited, constraining deeper comparison between studies.
CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: Accurate ossicle replication is emerging but depends on optimization of imaging, processing, and 3D-printing. Standardized reporting is needed to improve comparison between methods and support use in training and reconstruction.