Can high resolution 3D resin printed models be used in anatomy education? A randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Objectives: Resin printing is a rapidly growing technology with a diverse range of applications. This study aims to examine the usability of 3D resin printed models in anatomy education. Methods: The study included 84 students who were randomly assigned to either a 3D resin print group (n=42) or a plastic model group (n=42) based on their sex, lateralization, anatomy quiz scores, and Purdue spatial visualization test rotations scores. After attending a lecture, each participant examined an original sacrum and either a 3D printed or a plastic model, depending on their group. The participants were then asked to compare the models to the original using a visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire, which consisted of four questions about the model’s weight, anatomical accuracy, level of detail, and texture quality. The participants’ ability to identify the models was evaluated using a 3-point Likert scale. Results: The results showed that the 3D printed model had significantly higher ratings than the plastic model in terms of weight, level of detail, and texture quality (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in accuracy scores (p>0.05) or the participants’ ability to identify the models (p>0.05). Conclusion: 3D resin printed models are superior to plastic models in some aspects. These results suggest that 3D resin printed model can be used as in the conventional anatomy training approach.

Keywords

• 3D print
• education
• resin
• spatial ability

References

1. McBride JM, Drake RL. National survey on anatomical sciences in medical education. Anat Sci Educ 2018;11:7–14.
2. Estai M, Bunt S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: a critical review. Ann Anat 2016;208:151–7.
3. Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ 2010;3:83–93.
4. Winkelmann A. Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: a review of the evidence. Med Educ 2007;41:15–22.
5. Kerby J, Shukur ZN, Shalhoub J. The relationships between learning outcomes and methods of teaching anatomy as perceived by medical students. Clin Anat 2011;24:489–97.
6. Lim KHA, Loo ZY, Goldie SJ, Adams JW, McMenamin PG. Use of 3D printed models in medical education: a randomized control trial comparing 3D prints versus cadaveric materials for learning external cardiac anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 2016;9:213–21.
7. Robison RA, Liu CY, Apuzzo ML. Man, mind, and machine: the past and future of virtual reality simulation in neurologic surgery. World Neurosurg 2011;76:419–30.
8. Azer SA, Azer S. 3D anatomy models and impact on learning: a review of the quality of the literature. Health Professions Education 2016;2:80–98.

9. Peeler J, Bergen H, Bulow A. Musculoskeletal anatomy education: evaluating the influence of different teaching and learning activities on medical students perception and academic performance. Ann Anat 2018;219:44–50.
10. McMenamin PG, Quayle MR, McHenry CR, Adams JW. The production of anatomical teaching resources using three‐dimensional (3D) printing technology. Anat Sci Educ 2014;7:479–86.
11. Vaccarezza M. Best evidence of anatomy education? Insights from the most recent literature. Anat Sci Educ 2018;11:215–6.
12. Bergman EM, Prince KJ, Drukker J, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ. How much anatomy is enough? Anat Sci Educ 2008;1:184–8.
13. Silver A. 3D printing in the lab. Nature 2019;565:123–4.
14. Ye Z, Dun A, Jiang H, Nie C, Zhao S, Wang T, Zhai J. The role of 3D printed models in the teaching of human anatomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ 2020;20:1–9.
15. Jones DB, Sung R, Weinberg C, Korelitz T, Andrews R. Three-dimensional modeling may improve surgical education and clinical practice. Surg Innov 2016;23:189–95.
16. Lauridsen H, Hansen K, Nørgård MØ, Wang T, Pedersen M. From tissue to silicon to plastic: three-dimensional printing in comparative anatomy and physiology. R Soc Open Sci 2016;3:150643.
17. Sharma S, Goel SA. 3D printing and its future in medical world. Journal of Medical Research and Innovation 2019;3:e000141.
18. Arefin AM, Khatri NR, Kulkarni N, Egan PF. Polymer 3D printing review: materials, process, and design strategies for medical applications. Polymers (Basel) 2021;13:1499.
19. Salazar D, Thompson M, Rosen A, Zuniga J. Using 3D printing to improve student education of complex anatomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Sci Educ 2022;32:1209–18.
20. Maeda Y, Yoon SY. A meta-analysis on gender differences in mental rotation ability measured by the Purdue spatial visualization tests: visualization of rotations (PSVT:R). Educational Psychology Review 2013;25:69–94.
21. Voyer D. On the reliability and validity of noninvasive laterality measures. Brain Cogn 1998;36:209–36.
22. Guillot A, Champely S, Batier C, Thiriet P, Collet C. Relationship between spatial abilities, mental rotation and functional anatomy learning. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2007;12:491–507.
23. Terlecki MS, Newcombe NS, Little M. Durable and generalized effects of spatial experience on mental rotation: gender differences in growth patterns. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2008;22:996–1013. 24. Fasel JH, Aguiar D, Kiss-Bodolay D, Montet X, Kalangos A, Stimec BV, Ratib O. Adapting anatomy teaching to surgical trends: a combination of classical dissection, medical imaging, and 3D-printing technologies. Surg Radiol Anat 2016;38:361–7.
24. O’Reilly MK, Reese S, Herlihy T, Geoghegan T, Cantwell CP, Feeney RN, Jones JFX. Fabrication and assessment of 3 D printed anatomical models of the lower limb for anatomical teaching and femoral vessel access training in medicine. Anat Sci Educ 2016;9:71–9.
25. Mogali SR, Yeong WY, Tan HKJ, Tan GJS, Abrahams PH, Zary N, Low-Beer N, Ferenczi MA. Evaluation by medical students of the educational value of multi‐material and multi‐colored three‐dimensional printed models of the upper limb for anatomical education. Anat Sci Educ 2018;11:54–64.
26. Young J, Van Merrienboer J, During S, Ten Cate O. Cognitive load theory: implications for medical education: AMEE guide no.86. Med Teach 2014;36:371–84.
27. Chen S, Pan Z, Wu Y, Gu Z, Li M, Liang Z, Zhu H, Yao Y, Shui W, Shen Z, Zhao J, Pan H. The role of three-dimensional printed models of skull in anatomy education: a randomized controlled trail. Sci Rep 2017;7:575.
28. Smith CF, Tollemache N, Covill D, Johnston M. Take away body parts! An investigation into the use of 3D‐printed anatomical models in undergraduate anatomy education. Anat Sci Educ 2018;11:44–53.
29. Garas M, Vaccarezza M, Newland G, McVay-Doornbusch K, Hasani J. 3D-Printed specimens as a valuable tool in anatomy education: a pilot study. Ann Anat 2018;219:57–64.
30. Boeckers A, Brinkmann A, Jerg-Bretzke L, Lamp C, Traue HC, Boeckers TM. How can we deal with mental distress in the dissection room?-An evaluation of the need for psychological support. Ann Anat 2010;192:366–72.
31. Singh K, Gaur U, Hall K, Mascoll K, Cohall D, Majumder MAA. Teaching anatomy and dissection in an era of social distancing and remote learning. Advances in Human Biolology 2020;10:90.