Clinical Report: Review of 92 Clinical Trials on 3D Printing in Medicine
Overview
A review of 92 registered clinical trials involving 3D printing (3DP) in medicine reveals rapid growth in the field, with over 6,000 patients projected for enrollment. Most trials are concentrated in Orthopedics, Dentistry, and Maxillofacial Surgery, predominantly conducted in China and the USA, highlighting a transition from feasibility studies to routine clinical implementation.
Background
3D printing has been present in medicine for several years but remains underutilized in routine clinical care due to high costs, segmentation challenges, and a lack of robust scientific evidence. Existing studies are limited, mostly in Maxillofacial Surgery, Orthopedics, and Cardiology, with few randomized or cohort trials available. This review uniquely surveys all registered clinical trials worldwide to assess the current landscape and future directions of 3DP in clinical practice.
Data Highlights
Parameter
Value
Total registered trials
92
Projected patient enrollment
6,252
Countries involved
20
Top country (number of trials)
China (42)
Second and third countries
USA (13), Egypt (7)
Most common medical disciplines
Orthopedics (25), Dentistry (13), Maxillofacial Surgery (10)
Trial recruitment status
Enrolling (43), Completed (17), Not yet recruiting (15), Pending (12), Unknown (4), Active not recruiting (1)
Multicenter trials
10 (10.87%)
International collaborations
2 (2.17%)
Trial start years
Mostly before 2018, peak in 2016-2017
Projected trial completion
2017-2019 mainly
Key Findings
3DP clinical trials are predominantly conducted in China (45.65%), followed by the USA and Egypt.
Orthopedics leads as the most common specialty utilizing 3DP in clinical trials, followed by Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery.
Nearly half of the trials were actively enrolling patients at the time of data extraction, with a significant number completed or pending.
Only a small fraction of trials are multicenter (10.87%) and even fewer involve international collaboration (2.17%).
The surge in trial registrations after 2015 indicates a shift from early feasibility studies to more rigorous clinical evaluation and implementation.
Current barriers to broader 3DP adoption include segmentation difficulties, high costs, printing time, and lack of empirical evidence, which ongoing trials aim to address.
Clinical Implications
Clinicians should anticipate emerging evidence from ongoing 3DP clinical trials that may validate its utility and feasibility, particularly in Orthopedics, Dentistry, and Maxillofacial Surgery. Awareness of the current limitations and the evolving evidence base can guide cautious integration of 3DP technologies into clinical workflows. Multicenter and international collaborations remain limited, suggesting opportunities for broader cooperative research to accelerate adoption.
Conclusion
This comprehensive review highlights the rapid expansion and maturation of 3DP clinical research, marking a transition toward routine clinical application. The forthcoming results from these trials will be critical in overcoming current barriers and establishing 3DP as a standard tool in diverse medical specialties.
References
Various Authors/ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP/2017 -- A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Trials Involving 3D Printing in Medicine
A VHA study across 11 vendors finds AI-generated primary care notes score lower than clinician-written notes, with the largest deficits in thoroughness, organization, and usefulness
