The development of a 3D-printed relative motion orthosis and field testing of 3D and thermoplastic tape relative motion orthoses.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Fatih Süleyman Okumuş, İlkem Ceren Sığırtmaç, Özge Buket Arslan, Deran Oskay, Çiğdem Öksüz
{"title":"The development of a 3D-printed relative motion orthosis and field testing of 3D and thermoplastic tape relative motion orthoses.","authors":"Fatih Süleyman Okumuş, İlkem Ceren Sığırtmaç, Özge Buket Arslan, Deran Oskay, Çiğdem Öksüz","doi":"10.1016/j.jht.2026.02.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Three-dimensional (3D) printing offers an alternative for orthotic fabrication, particularly where thermoplastics are costly or not readily available. This report explored a universal-design 3D-printed relative motion orthosis and compared short-term user satisfaction with custom thermoplastic tape (Orficast) relative motion flexion orthoses.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To design and produce universal 3D-printed relative motion orthosis using iterative prototyping and compare it with custom thermoplastic tape relative motion flexion orthoses.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Comparative field test with iterative prototype development.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study had two phases. In phase 1, a universal-design 3D relative motion orthosis was developed using repeated design-print-fit-refine cycles with feedback from an expert focus group. In phase 2, patients with Burton stage I boutonnière deformity were randomly assigned to wear either a 3D-printed relative motion flexion orthosis or a custom thermoplastic tape relative motion flexion orthosis for 1 week. User satisfaction was evaluated using the Turkish version of the Orthotics Prosthetics Users Survey (OPUS) satisfaction module.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four prototypes and two final designs were produced; the final design met the focus-group checklist criteria. Forty participants were randomized (20 per group); nonadherence by four 3D group participants resulted in exclusion, leaving 16 (3D printed orthoses) and 20 (thermoplastic orthoses) for analysis (n = 36). OPUS Satisfaction scores did not differ significantly between groups after 1 week (3D printed orthoses: 93.19 ± 6.28 vs thermoplastic orthoses: 89.35 ± 11.17; p = 0.24). The material cost was €2.75 (US$3.19) for the 3D-printed orthosis vs €7.50 (US$8.70) for the thermoplastic tape orthosis in our setting.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study 3D printing lowered material costs and reduced therapist time compared to custom thermoplastic tape relative motion flexion orthoses. Patients with stage 1 Burton boutonniere deformity wearing the 3D-printed or custom thermoplastic tape relative motion flexion orthoses reported comparable satisfaction after 1-week wear time.</p>","PeriodicalId":54814,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2026.02.005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Three-dimensional (3D) printing offers an alternative for orthotic fabrication, particularly where thermoplastics are costly or not readily available. This report explored a universal-design 3D-printed relative motion orthosis and compared short-term user satisfaction with custom thermoplastic tape (Orficast) relative motion flexion orthoses.

Purpose: To design and produce universal 3D-printed relative motion orthosis using iterative prototyping and compare it with custom thermoplastic tape relative motion flexion orthoses.

Study design: Comparative field test with iterative prototype development.

Methods: The study had two phases. In phase 1, a universal-design 3D relative motion orthosis was developed using repeated design-print-fit-refine cycles with feedback from an expert focus group. In phase 2, patients with Burton stage I boutonnière deformity were randomly assigned to wear either a 3D-printed relative motion flexion orthosis or a custom thermoplastic tape relative motion flexion orthosis for 1 week. User satisfaction was evaluated using the Turkish version of the Orthotics Prosthetics Users Survey (OPUS) satisfaction module.

Results: Four prototypes and two final designs were produced; the final design met the focus-group checklist criteria. Forty participants were randomized (20 per group); nonadherence by four 3D group participants resulted in exclusion, leaving 16 (3D printed orthoses) and 20 (thermoplastic orthoses) for analysis (n = 36). OPUS Satisfaction scores did not differ significantly between groups after 1 week (3D printed orthoses: 93.19 ± 6.28 vs thermoplastic orthoses: 89.35 ± 11.17; p = 0.24). The material cost was €2.75 (US$3.19) for the 3D-printed orthosis vs €7.50 (US$8.70) for the thermoplastic tape orthosis in our setting.

Conclusions: In this study 3D printing lowered material costs and reduced therapist time compared to custom thermoplastic tape relative motion flexion orthoses. Patients with stage 1 Burton boutonniere deformity wearing the 3D-printed or custom thermoplastic tape relative motion flexion orthoses reported comparable satisfaction after 1-week wear time.

3D打印相对运动矫形器的开发和3D和热塑性胶带相对运动矫形器的现场测试。
背景:三维(3D)打印为矫形器制造提供了另一种选择,特别是在热塑性塑料昂贵或不易获得的情况下。本报告探讨了一种通用设计的3d打印相对运动矫形器,并比较了用户对定制热塑性胶带(Orficast)相对运动矫形器的短期满意度。目的:利用迭代原型设计和生产通用3d打印相对运动矫形器,并与定制热塑性胶带相对运动矫形器进行比较。研究设计:对比现场测试与迭代原型开发。方法:研究分为两个阶段。在第一阶段,通过专家小组的反馈,通过重复的设计-打印-适配-优化循环,开发出通用设计的3D相对运动矫形器。在第二阶段,Burton期胸孔畸形患者被随机分配佩戴3d打印的相对运动屈曲矫形器或定制的热塑性胶带相对运动屈曲矫形器一周。使用土耳其版矫形修复术用户调查(OPUS)满意度模块评估用户满意度。结果:制作了4个原型和2个最终设计;最终的设计符合焦点小组检查表的标准。随机选取40名参与者(每组20人);4名3D组参与者的不依从性导致排除,留下16名(3D打印矫形器)和20名(热塑性矫形器)进行分析(n = 36)。1周后各组OPUS满意度评分差异无统计学意义(3D打印矫形器:93.19±6.28 vs热塑性矫形器:89.35±11.17;p = 0.24)。3d打印矫形器的材料成本为2.75欧元(3.19美元),而热塑性胶带矫形器的材料成本为7.50欧元(8.70美元)。结论:在这项研究中,与定制热塑性胶带相对运动屈曲矫形器相比,3D打印降低了材料成本,减少了治疗时间。佩戴3d打印或定制热塑性胶带相对运动屈曲矫形器的1期伯顿钮孔畸形患者在佩戴1周后报告了相当的满意度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Hand Therapy
Journal of Hand Therapy 医学-外科
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
65
审稿时长
19.2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Hand Therapy is designed for hand therapists, occupational and physical therapists, and other hand specialists involved in the rehabilitation of disabling hand problems. The Journal functions as a source of education and information by publishing scientific and clinical articles. Regular features include original reports, clinical reviews, case studies, editorials, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书