Utilization of 3D Printing Techniques in the Prosthetics Manufacturing: Historical, Current, and Future

Notice

This is an unedited manuscript accepted for publication and provided as an Article in Press for early access at the author’s request. The article will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and galley proof review before final publication. Please be aware that errors may be identified during production that could affect the content. All legal disclaimers of the journal apply.

Year : 2025 | Volume : 15 | Issue : 03 | Page :
    By

    Aditya Vivek Mayekar,

  • Shubham Vikrant Kandarkar,

  1. Research Scholar, MCA Thakur Institute of Management Studies, Career Development & Research (TIMSCDR) Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
  2. Research scholar, MCA Thakur Institute of Management Studies, Career Development & Research (TIMSCDR) Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Abstract

Prosthetics for people with upper-limb differences have an intriguing and extensive history, yet problems that have not been resolved still exist. Children’s prosthesis requirements are more complicated because of their rapid growing. A child’s psychological development can be significantly impacted by their access to a technology. Children frequently cannot access technologies that support both cosmetic form and user function because of their high cost, insurance policies, medical availability, perceived durability, and control complexity. These difficulties have sparked an international movement to provide a workable solution for the millions of people who live with limb differences worldwide. The creative use of 3D printing to create user-specific and customized hardware has resulted in the open-source “DIY” creation of assistive equipment, which has had a remarkable influence on low-income families all over the world. The maker community and nonprofit organizations’ recent research and creation of prosthesis is examined in this paper, along with examining the advancement of technology and available training techniques. These design initiatives are examined in more detail within the framework of Indian medical regulations, and they draw attention to recent related clinical research aimed at assessing the impact of these devices on quality of life.

Keywords: 3D printing; prosthetics; Customized prosthetic devices.

[This article belongs to Journal of Nanoscience, NanoEngineering & Applications ]

How to cite this article:
Aditya Vivek Mayekar, Shubham Vikrant Kandarkar. Utilization of 3D Printing Techniques in the Prosthetics Manufacturing: Historical, Current, and Future. Journal of Nanoscience, NanoEngineering & Applications. 2025; 15(03):-.
How to cite this URL:
Aditya Vivek Mayekar, Shubham Vikrant Kandarkar. Utilization of 3D Printing Techniques in the Prosthetics Manufacturing: Historical, Current, and Future. Journal of Nanoscience, NanoEngineering & Applications. 2025; 15(03):-. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/jonsnea/article=2025/view=216463


References

  1. Szumilas M, Władziński M, Wildner K. A coupled piezoelectric sensor for mmg-based human-machine interfaces. Sensors. 2021 Dec 15;21(24):8380.
  2. Jones H, Dupan S, Dyson M, Krasoulis A, Kenney LP, Donovan-Hall M, Memarzadeh K, Day S, Coutinho M, Nazarpour K. Co-creation and user perspectives for upper limb prosthetics. Frontiers in Neurorobotics. 2021 Jul 9;15:689717.
  3. Einfeldt AK, Rebmann F, Yao D, Stukenborg-Colsmann C, Hurschler C, Windhagen H, Jakubowitz E. What do users and their aiding professionals want from future devices in upper limb prosthetics? A focus group study. Plos one. 2023 Dec 29;18(12):e0295516.
  4. McDonald CL, Bennett CL, Rosner DK, Steele KM. Perceptions of ability among adults with upper limb absence: impacts of learning, identity, and community. Disability and rehabilitation. 2020 Nov 5;42(23):3306-15.
  5. Andres-Esperanza J, Iserte-Vilar JL, Llop-Harillo I, Perez-Gonzalez A. Affordable 3D-printed tendon prosthetic hands: Expectations and benchmarking questioned. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal. 2022 Jul 1;31:101053.
  6. Grannetino J. Eighth graders empowering others with engineering. Technology and Engineering Teacher. 2020 Dec 1;80(4):26-31.
  7. Savage S, Flores-Saviaga C, Rodney R, Savage L, Schull J, Mankoff J. The global care ecosystems of 3D printed assistive devices. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing. 2022 Oct 22;15(4):1-29.
  8. Guha ML, Druin A, Fails JA. Cooperative Inquiry revisited: Reflections of the past and guidelines for the future of intergenerational co-design. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. 2013 Jan 1;1(1):14-23.
  9. Svanaes D, Seland G. Putting the users center stage: role playing and low-fi prototyping enable end users to design mobile systems. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems 2004 Apr 25 (pp. 479-486).
  10. Walsh G, Druin A, Guha ML, Foss E, Golub E, Hatley L, Bonsignore E, Franckel S. Layered elaboration: a new technique for co-design with children. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems 2010 Apr 10 (pp. 1237-1240).
  11. Walsh G, Foss E, Yip J, Druin A. FACIT PD: a framework for analysis and creation of intergenerational techniques for participatory design. Inproceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2013 Apr 27 (pp. 2893-2902).
  12. Hinders MK, Hinders MK, Kirn SL. Cranks and charlatans and deepfakes. Intelligent Feature Selection for Machine Learning Using the Dynamic Wavelet Fingerprint. 2020:297-346.
  13. McLarney M, Pezzin LE, McGinley EL, Prosser L, Dillingham TR. The prevalence of lower limb loss in children and associated costs of prosthetic devices: A national study of commercial insurance claims. Prosthetics and orthotics international. 2021 Apr 1;45(2):115-22.
  14. Manero A, Smith P, Sparkman J, Dombrowski M, Courbin D, Kester A, Womack I, Chi A. Implementation of 3D printing technology in the field of prosthetics: Past, present, and future. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2019 May;16(9):1641.
  15. Raina S, Bhat S, Raina R, Bhalla J, Chaudhari A. Limb Loss: Facts and Statistics–Diabetes Mellitus and Vascular Insufficiency, a Real Harbinger of Major Limb Amputations–A Cross-sectional Study among Amputees Reporting to a Tertiary Care Center. Journal of Orthopaedic Diseases and Traumatology. 2023 Sep 1;6(3):223-7.
  16. Di Prima M, Coburn J, Hwang D, Kelly J, Khairuzzaman A, Ricles L. Additively manufactured medical products–the FDA perspective. 3D printing in medicine. 2016 Dec;2:1-6.
  17. Gonzalez Avila JF, Pietrzak T, Girouard A, Casiez G. Understanding the Challenges of OpenSCAD Users for 3D Printing. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2024 May 11 (pp. 1-20).
  18. Pant P, Gupta VB, Khanna A, Saxena N. Technology foresight study on assistive technology for locomotor disability. Technology and Disability. 2018 Nov;29(4):163-71.
  19. Basu B, Gowtham NH, Xiao Y, Kalidindi SR, Leong KW. Biomaterialomics: Data science-driven pathways to develop fourth-generation biomaterials. Acta Biomaterialia. 2022 Apr 15;143:1-25.
  20. Quinones-Gomez JC, Mor E, Chacón J. Data-driven design in the design process: A systematic literature review on challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. 2025 Feb 16;41(4):2227-52.
  21. Manero A, Smith P, Sparkman J, Dombrowski M, Courbin D, Kester A, Womack I, Chi A. Implementation of 3D printing technology in the field of prosthetics: Past, present, and future. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2019 May;16(9):1641.
  22. Andres-Esperanza J, Iserte-Vilar JL, Llop-Harillo I, Perez-Gonzalez A. Affordable 3D-printed tendon prosthetic hands: Expectations and benchmarking questioned. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal. 2022 Jul 1;31:101053.
  23. Cuellar JS, Smit G, Zadpoor AA, Breedveld P. Ten guidelines for the design of non-assembly mechanisms: The case of 3D-printed prosthetic hands. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine. 2018 Sep;232(9):962-71.
  24. O’Brien L, Cho E, Khara A, Lavranos J, Lommerse L, Chen C. 3D-printed custom-designed prostheses for partial hand amputation: Mechanical challenges still exist. Journal of Hand Therapy. 2021 Oct 1;34(4):539-42.
  25. Salazar M, Rosero R, Zambrano O, Portero P. Impact of 3D printing technology for the construction of a prototype of low-cost robotic arm prostheses. Advances in Mechanical Engineering. 2024 Dec;16(12):16878132241307065.
  26. Piazza C, Grioli G, Catalano MG, Bicchi A. A century of robotic hands. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems. 2019 May 3;2(1):1-32.
  27. Siegel JR, Harwood JK, Lau AC, Brenneis DJ, Dawson MR, Pilarski PM, Schofield JS. A performance evaluation of commercially available and 3D-printable prosthetic hands: a comparison using the anthropomorphic hand assessment protocol. BMC Biomedical Engineering. 2024 Dec 2;6(1):11.
  28. Ohnishi K, Weir RF, Kuiken TA. Neural machine interfaces for controlling multifunctional powered upper-limb prostheses. Expert review of medical devices. 2007 Jan 1;4(1):43-53.
  29. Resnik L, Acluche F, Lieberman Klinger S, Borgia M. Does the DEKA Arm substitute for or supplement conventional prostheses. Prosthetics and Orthotics International. 2018 Oct;42(5):534-43.
  30. Resnik L, Acluche F, Borgia M. The DEKA hand: A multifunction prosthetic terminal device—patterns of grip usage at home. Prosthetics and Orthotics International. 2018 Aug;42(4):446-54.
  31. Cowley J, Resnik L, Wilken J, Smurr Walters L, Gates D. Movement quality of conventional prostheses and the DEKA Arm during everyday tasks. Prosthetics and orthotics international. 2017 Feb;41(1):33-40.
  32. Smith EM. The Global Report on Assistive Technology: A new era in assistive technology. Assistive Technology. 2022 May 4;34(3):255.
  33. Dally C, Johnson D, Canon M, Ritter S, Mehta K. Characteristics of a 3D-printed prosthetic hand for use in developing countries. In2015 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC) 2015 Oct 8 (pp. 66-70). IEEE.
  34. Elmansy R. Designing the 3D‐Printed prosthetic hand. Design Management Review. 2015 Mar;26(1):24-31.
  35. Foss E, Guha ML, Papadatos P, Clegg T, Yip J, Walsh G. Cooperative inquiry extended: Creating technology with middle school students with learning differences. Journal of Special Education Technology. 2013 Sep;28(3):33-46.
  36. Manero II A, Smith P, Sparkman J, Dombrowski M, Courbin D, Barclay P, Chi A. Utilizing additive manufacturing and gamified virtual simulation in the design of neuroprosthetics to improve pediatric outcomes. MRS Communications. 2019 Sep;9(3):941-7.
  37. Dizon JR, Espera Jr AH, Chen Q, Advincula RC. Mechanical characterization of 3D-printed polymers. Additive manufacturing. 2018 Mar 1;20:44-67.
  38. Lunsford C, Grindle G, Salatin B, Dicianno BE. Innovations with 3-dimensional printing in physical medicine and rehabilitation: a review of the literature. Pm&r. 2016 Dec 1;8(12):1201-12.
  39. Petrick IJ, Simpson TW. 3D printing disrupts manufacturing: how economies of one create new rules of competition. Research-Technology Management. 2013 Nov 1;56(6):12-6.
  40. Sköld A, Hermansson LN, KRUMLINDE‐SUNDHOLM LE, ELIASSON AC. Development and evidence of validity for the Children’s Hand‐use Experience Questionnaire (CHEQ). Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 2011 May;53(5):436-42.
Regular Issue Subscription Review Article
Volume 15
Issue 03
Received 10/03/2025
Accepted 30/06/2025
Published 08/07/2025
Publication Time 120 Days
104


My IP

PlumX Metrics