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


Okumuş F. S., Sığırtmaç İ. C., ARSLAN Ö. B., OSKAY D., ÖKSÜZ Ç.

Journal of Hand Therapy, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Basım Tarihi: 2026
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1016/j.jht.2026.02.005
  • Dergi Adı: Journal of Hand Therapy
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: 3D printed orthoses, Boutonniere deformity, Custom thermoplastic orthoses, Iterative prototyping, Patient satisfaction
  • Gazi Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

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.