3D Printed Models for Teaching Orbital Anatomy, Anomalies and Fractures
Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of using 3D printing models in the learning process of orbital anatomy and pathology by ophthalmology residents.
Methods: A quasi-experimental study was performed with 24 residents of ophthalmology at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. Each stratum was randomized into two groups. The educational booklets were distributed, and various forms of orbital 3D models were printed from orbital computed tomography (CT) scans. Knowledge enhancement on the topics was measured by comparing pretest and posttest scores.
Results: Thirteen residents who were trained using traditional methods were deemed the control group; while 11 residents who were trained using the 3D printed models were classed as the intervention group. The control group was younger than the intervention group (P = 0.047). The results showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the total posttest scores between the two groups. Based on the repeated measures of the analysis of variance (ANOVA), score variables were significant between the two groups (P = 0.008). Interestingly, the use of the 3D educational model was more effective and statistically significant with the year one residents as compared to the year two residents (P = 0.002).
Conclusion: This study is the first one in Iran quantifying the effects of learning using 3D printed models in medical education. In fact, 3D modeling training is seemingly effective in teaching ophthalmic residents. As residents have never encountered such technology before, their experience using 3D models proved to be satisfactory and had a surprising positive effect on the learning process through visual training.
3D Printed Models, Learning, Ophthalmology Residents, Orbit
1. Simsek I. The effect of 3D virtual learning environment on secondary school third grade students’ attitudes toward mathematics. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET 2016;15:162–168.
2. Lupton D. Fabricated data bodies: reflections on 3D printed digital body objects in medical and health domains. Social Theory & Health 2015;13:99–115.
3. Loke YH, Harahsheh AS, Krieger A, Olivieri LJ. Usage of 3D models of tetralogy of fallot for medical education: impact on learning congenital heart disease. BMC Medical Education 2017;17:54.
4. Ayala Alvarez FJ, Blazque Parra EB, Montes T. Assessment of 3D models used in contours studies. Universal Journal of Educational Research 2015;3:877–890.
5. Loke Y-H, Harahsheh AS, Krieger A, Olivieri LJ. Usage of 3D models of tetralogy of fallot for medical education: impact on learning congenital heart disease. BMC Medical Education 2017;17:54.
6. Meyer ER, James AM, Cui D. Hips don’t lie: expert opinions guide the validation of a virtual 3D pelvis model for use in anatomy education and medical training. HAPS Educator 2018;22:105–118.
7. Weadock WJ, Heisel CJ, Kahana A, Kim J. Molds for shaping implants for surgical repair of orbital fractures. Academic Radiology 2019;27:536–542.
8. Kang S, Kwon J, Ahn CJ, Esmaeli B, Kim GB, Kim N, et al. Generation of customized orbital implant templates using 3-dimensional printing for orbital wall reconstruction. The Royal College of Ophtalmologists 2018;32:1864–1870.
9. Elrod R. Tinkering with teachers: the case for 3D printing in the education library. Education Libraries 2016;39:1–13.
10. Chen H, Kelly M, Hayes C, Van Reyk D, Herok G. The use of simulation as a novel experiential learning module in undergraduate science pathophysiology education. Advances in Physiology Education 2016;40:11.
11. Vatankhah R, Etezad-Razavi M, Nekoei S, Khadem- Rezaiyan M, Tafaghodi-Yousefi B, Karimi-Monaghi H, et al. Three-dimensional (3D) visualization educational modeling for ophthalmology residents’ training. MJIRI. In Press.
12. Montgomery SJ, Kooner SS, Ludwig TE, Schneider PS. Impact of 3D printed calcaneal models on fracture understanding and confidence in orthopedic surgery residents. Journal of Surgical Education 2019:77:472–478.
13. Weinmann J. Makerspaces in the university community [dissertation on the internet]. Germany: Technische Universität München; 2014. [cited 2014 August 21] Available from: https://fabfoundation.org/resource-folder/ pdfs/Weinmann_Masters_Thesis.pdf
14. Canessa E, Fonda C, Zennaro M, Deadline N. Lowcost 3D printing for science, education and sustainable development. Low-Cost Dd Printing 2013;22:11.
15. Lütolf G. Using 3D printers at school: the experience of 3drucken.ch. In: Canessa E, Fonda C, Zennaro M, editors. Low-cost 3D printing for science, education and sustainable development. Trieste, Italy: The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP); 2013. p. 149–158.
16. Blikstein P. Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: the democratization of invention. In: Walter-Herrmann J, Büching C, editors. Fablabs: of machines, makers and inventors. Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers; 2013.
17. Slavkovsky EA. Feasibility study for teaching geometry and other topics using three-dimensional printers. Harvard University; 2012.
18. Krassenstein E. Why 3D printing needs to take off in schools around the world [Internet]. 3Dprint.com; 2014 [cited 2014 December 21]. Available from: https://3dprint. com/27743/3d-printing-benefits-schools/
19. Yammine K, Violato C. The effectiveness of physical models in teaching anatomy: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Advances in Health Sciences Education 2016;21:883–895.
20. Sisson SD, Rastegar DA, Ughes MT, Bertram AK, Yeh H. Learner feedback and educational outcomes with an internet-based ambulatory curriculum: a qualitative and quantitative analysis. BMC Medical Education 2012;12:55.
21. Lim PK, Stephenson GS, Keown TW, Byrne C, Lin CC, Marecek GS, et al. Use of 3D printed models in resident education for the classification of acetabulum fractures. Journal of Surgical Education 2018;75:6.
22. Wonjin J, Jang HI, Harianto RA, So JH, Lee H, Lee HJ, et al. Introduction of 3D printing technology in the classroom for visually impaired students. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 2016;110:115–121.