UNASSIGNED: 3D-printing is a rapidly developing technology with applications in orthopaedics including pre-operative planning, intraoperative guides, design of patient specific instruments and prosthetics, and education. Existing literature demonstrates that in the surgical treatment of a wide range of orthopaedic pathology, using 3D printing shows favourable outcomes. Despite this evidence 3D printing is not routinely used in orthopaedic practice. We aim to evaluate the advantages of 3D printing in orthopaedic surgery to demonstrate its widespread applications throughout the field.
UNASSIGNED: We performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. AMED, EMBASE, EMCARE, HMIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, BNI, CINAHL and Medline databases were searched using Healthcare Databases Advanced Search (HDAS) platform. The search was conducted to include papers published before 8th November 2020. Clinical trials, journal articles, Randomised Control Trials and Case Series were included across any area of orthopaedic surgery. The primary outcomes measured were operation time, blood loss, fluoroscopy time, bone fusion time and length of hospital stay.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 65 studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed, and 15 were suitable for the meta-analysis, producing a data set of 609 patients. The use of 3D printing in any of its recognised applications across orthopaedic surgery showed an overall reduction in operative time (SMD = -1.30; 95%CI: -1.73, -0.87), reduction in intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -1.58; 95%CI: -2.16, -1.00) and reduction in intraoperative fluoroscopy time (SMD = -1.86; 95%CI: -2.60, -1.12). There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay or in bone fusion time post-operatively.
UNASSIGNED: The use of 3D printing in orthopaedics leads to an improvement in primary outcome measures showing reduced operative time, intraoperative blood loss and number of times fluoroscopy is used. With its wide-reaching applications and as the technology improves, 3D printing could become a valuable addition to an orthopaedic surgeon\'s toolbox.

4D printing is an innovative digital manufacturing technology that originated by adding a fourth dimension, i.e., time, to pre-existing 3D technology or additive manufacturing (AM). AM is a fast-growing technology used in many fields, which develops accurate 3D objects based on models designed by computers. Dentistry is one such field in which 3D technology is used for manufacturing objects in periodontics (scaffolds, local drug-delivering agents, augmentation of ridges), implants, prosthodontics (partial and complete dentures, obturators), oral surgery for reconstructing jaw, and orthodontics. Dynamism is a vital property needed for the survival of materials used in the oral cavity since the oral cavity is constantly subjected to various insults. 4D printing technology has overcome the disadvantages of 3D printing technology, i.e., it cannot create dynamic objects. Therefore, constant knowledge of 4D technology is required. 3D printing technology has shortcomings, which are discussed in this review. This review summaries various printing technologies, materials used, stimuli, and potential applications of 4D technology in dentistry.

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional printing (3DP) is being integrated into surgical practice at a significant pace, from preprocedural planning to procedure simulation. 3DP is especially useful in surgical education, where printed models are highly accurate and customizable. The aim of this study was to evaluate how 3DP is being integrated most recently into surgical residency training.
METHODS: We performed a structured literature search of the OVID/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PUBMED databases following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Articles published from 2016 to 2023 that met predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were included. Data extracted included surgical subspecialty using 3DP, application of 3DP, and any reported satisfaction measures of trainees. A thorough analysis of pooled data was performed to evaluate satisfaction rates among studies.
RESULTS: A total of 85 studies were included. The median number of participants was 18 (interquartile range 10-27). Fourteen surgical disciplines were represented, with ear, nose, and throat/otolaryngology having the highest recorded utilization of 3DP models among residents and medical students (22.0%), followed by neurosurgery (14.0%) and urology (12.0%). 3DP models were created most frequently to model soft tissue (35.3%), bone (24.7%), vessel (14.1%), mixed (16.4%), or whole organs (6.66%) (Fig.1). Feedback from trainees was overwhelmingly positive regarding the fidelity of the models and their support for integration into their training programs. Among trainees, the combined satisfaction rate with their use in the curriculum was 95% (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.97), and the satisfaction rate with the model fidelity was 90% (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.94).
CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the surgical specialties utilizing 3DP models in training. These models are effective in increasing trainee comfort with both common and rare scenarios and are associated with a high degree of resident support and satisfaction. Plastic surgery programs may benefit from the integration of this technology, potentially strengthening future surgical curricula. Objective evaluations of their pedagogic effects on residents are areas of future research.

OBJECTIVE: In recent years, 3D printing technology has been employed as a production method that builds materials layer upon layer, providing notable advantages in terms of individual customization and production efficiency. Autologous costal cartilage ear reconstruction has seen substantial changes due to 3D printing technology. In this context, this research evaluated the prospects and applications of 3D printing in ear reconstruction education, preoperative planning and simulation, the production of intraoperative guide plates, and other related areas.
METHODS: All articles eligible for consideration were sourced through a comprehensive search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to May 22, 2023. Two reviewers extracted data on the manufacturing process and interventions. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of the research. Database searching yielded 283 records, of which 24 articles were selected for qualitative analysis.
RESULTS: The utilization of 3D printing is becoming increasingly widespread in autogenous costal cartilage ear reconstruction, from education to the application of preoperative design and intraoperative guide plates production, possessing a substantial influence on surgical training, the enhancement of surgical effects, complications reduction, and so forth.
CONCLUSIONS: This study sought to determine the application value and further development potential of 3D printing in autologous costal cartilage ear reconstruction. However, there is a lack of conclusive evidence on its effectiveness when compared to conventional strategies because of the limited number of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials. Simultaneously, the evaluation of the effect lacks objective and quantitative evaluation criteria, with most of them being emotional sentiments and ratings, making it difficult to execute a quantitative synthetic analysis. It is hoped that more large-scale comparative studies will be undertaken, and an objective and standard effect evaluation system will be implemented in the future.

The emergence of digital dentistry has led to the introduction of various three-dimensional (3D) printing materials in the market, specifically for provisional fixed restoration. This study aimed to undertake a systematic review of the published literature on the Mechanical Properties of 3D- Printed Provisional Resin Materials for crown and fixed dental prosthesis (FDP). The electronic database on PubMed/Medline was searched for relevant studies. The search retrieved articles that were published from January 2011 to March 2023. The established focus question was: \"Do provisional 3D-printed materials have better mechanical properties than conventional or milled provisional materials?\". The systematically extracted data included the researcher\'s name(s), publication year, evaluation method, number of samples, types of materials, and study outcome. A total of 19 studies were included in this systematic review. These studies examined different aspects of the mechanical properties of 3D-printed provisional materials. Flexural Strength and Microhardness were the frequently used mechanical testing. Furthermore, 3D-printed provisional restorations showed higher hardness, smoother surfaces, less wear volume loss, and higher wear resistance compared to either milled or conventional, or both. 3D-printed provisional resin materials appear to be a promising option for fabricating provisional crowns and FDPs.

In recent years, flexible pressure sensing arrays applied in medical monitoring, human-machine interaction, and the Internet of Things have received a lot of attention for their excellent performance. Epidermal sensing arrays can enable the sensing of physiological information, pressure, and other information such as haptics, providing new avenues for the development of wearable devices. This paper reviews the recent research progress on epidermal flexible pressure sensing arrays. Firstly, the fantastic performance materials currently used to prepare flexible pressure sensing arrays are outlined in terms of substrate layer, electrode layer, and sensitive layer. In addition, the general fabrication processes of the materials are summarized, including three-dimensional (3D) printing, screen printing, and laser engraving. Subsequently, the electrode layer structures and sensitive layer microstructures used to further improve the performance design of sensing arrays are discussed based on the limitations of the materials. Furthermore, we present recent advances in the application of fantastic-performance epidermal flexible pressure sensing arrays and their integration with back-end circuits. Finally, the potential challenges and development prospects of flexible pressure sensing arrays are discussed in a comprehensive manner.

Developments in computer-aided design and three-dimensional (3D) printing have revolutionized the workflow for orthodontic applications. The purpose of this review article is to provide information about 3D printer history and types, appliances manufactured using 3D printers, and new designs that can be used in different cases. Articles published between January 2010 and November 2020 were reviewed on PubMed, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Elsevier, and Google academic resources, and 69 were identified as appropriate for the study. It was seen that bracket and archwires, nasoalveolar molding devices, orthognathic surgical splints, removable appliances, expansion appliances, clear aligner, retainers, auxiliary attachments, and working models can all be made with 3D printers. The 3D printer is now a technology that is easily accessible to orthodontists, increasing the production of different customizable appliances and promising a transition to a digital clinical workflow in the future.

Craniofacial bone defects are one of the biggest clinical challenges in regenerative medicine, with secondary autologous bone grafting being the gold-standard technique. The development of new three-dimensional matrices intends to overcome the disadvantages of the gold-standard method. The aim of this paper is to put forth an in-depth review regarding the clinical efficiency of available 3D printed biomaterials for the correction of alveolar bone defects. A survey was carried out using the following databases: PubMed via Medline, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and gray literature. The inclusion criteria applied were the following: in vitro, in vivo, ex vivo, and clinical studies; and studies that assessed bone regeneration resorting to 3D printed biomaterials. The risk of bias of the in vitro and in vivo studies was performed using the guidelines for the reporting of pre-clinical studies on dental materials by Faggion Jr and the SYRCLE risk of bias tool, respectively. In total, 92 publications were included in the final sample. The most reported three-dimensional biomaterials were the PCL matrix, β-TCP matrix, and hydroxyapatite matrix. These biomaterials can be combined with different polymers and bioactive molecules such as rBMP-2. Most of the included studies had a high risk of bias. Despite the advances in the research on new three-dimensionally printed biomaterials in bone regeneration, the existing results are not sufficient to justify the application of these biomaterials in routine clinical practice.

Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting is a cutting-edge technology that has come to light recently and shows a promising potential whose progress will change the face of medicine. This article reviews the most commonly used techniques and biomaterials for 3D bioprinting. We will also look at the advantages and limitations of various techniques and biomaterials and get a comparative idea about them. In addition, we will also look at the recent applications of these techniques in different industries. This article aims to get a basic idea of the techniques and biomaterials used in 3D bioprinting, their advantages and limitations, and their recent applications in various fields.

Three-dimensional printing offers possibilities for the development of new models in endodontics. Numerous studies have used 3D-printed teeth; however, protocols for the standardization of studies still need to be developed. Another problem with 3D-printed teeth is the different areas of literature requested to understand the processes. This review aims to gather evidence about 3D-printed teeth on the following aspects: (1) why they are advantageous; (2) how they are manufactured; (3) problems they present; and (4) future research topics. Natural teeth are still the standard practice in ex vivo studies and pre-clinical courses, but they have several drawbacks. Printed teeth may overcome all limitations of natural teeth. Printing technology relies on 3D data and post-processing tools to form a 3D model, ultimately generating a prototype using 3D printers. The major concerns with 3D-printed teeth are the resin hardness and printing accuracy of the canal anatomy. Guidance is presented for future studies to solve the problems of 3D-printed teeth and develop well-established protocols, for the standardization of methods to be achieved. In the future, 3D-printed teeth have the possibility to become the gold standard in ex vivo studies and endodontic training.