Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review analyzes additive manufacturing in medicine, highlighting processes and clinical applications.
Background: Additive manufacturing (AM), widely known as 3D printing, has emerged as a transformative technology in medical device production and implantology over the past two decades. Despite significant advances, no comprehensive systematic review has synthesized evidence across all major AM processes, material categories, and clinical applications simultaneously. Objective: This systematic review aims to critically analyze and synthesize the current state of additive manufacturing in medicine and implants, covering processes, biomedical materials, clinical applications, advantages, limitations, and future perspectives. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases using keywords including 'additive manufacturing medicine', '3D printing implants', 'bioprinting', and related terms. Studies published between 2010 and 2025 were included. A total of 87 relevant publications were identified and analyzed. Results: Four main AM processes (FDM, SLA, SLS, Binder Jetting) are currently employed in medicine, each with specific material compatibility and clinical indications. Titanium (Ti-6Al-4V) and PEEK dominate implant manufacturing, while bioinks represent the frontier of tissue engineering. Clinical evidence confirms superior outcomes in orthopedics (20–35% reduction in operative time), dentistry, and prosthetics. Conclusions: AM represents a paradigm shift in medical manufacturing. Integration with AI, smart materials, and organ bioprinting will define the next decade of medical innovation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Perparim Selmani (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: