The effectiveness of three-dimensional printing in undergraduate and postgraduate anatomy education: A review of reviews

Purpose

Several reviews and meta-analyses about the value of three-dimensional (3D) printing in anatomy education have been published in the last years, with variable-and sometimes confusing- outcomes. We performed a review of those reviews, in order to shed light on the results concerning the effectiveness of 3D printing in anatomy education, compared to specific traditional methods and other technologies.

Methods

The electronic databases PubMed, ERIC and Cochrane library were searched for reviews or meta-analyses with purpose to investigate the effectiveness of 3D printing in undergraduate and postgraduate anatomy education.

Results

Seven papers were included: four systematic reviews with meta-analysis, one narrative, one scoping and one systematic review. Overall, it has been shown that 3D printing is more effective than two-dimensional (2D) images for undergraduate health science students, but not for medical residents. Also, it seems to be more effective than 2D methods for teaching anatomy of some relatively complex structures, such as the nervous system. However, there is generally lack of evidence about the effectiveness of 3D printing in comparison with other 3D visualization methods.

Conclusions

For students, the effectiveness of 3D printing in anatomy education is higher than 2D methods. There is need for studies to investigate the effectiveness of 3D printing in comparison with other 3D visualization methods, such as cadaveric dissection, prosection and virtual reality. There is also need for research to explore if 3D printing is effective as a supplementary tool in a blended anatomy learning approach.