# A Feasibility Study of Splintage by 3D Scanning and Printing: Process and Evaluation of Current 3D Printing Material

## TL;DR

This study explores the feasibility of using 3D scanning and printing to create wrist splints, finding that while users were satisfied with the design, material and process limitations need improvement for clinical use.

## Contribution

A clinician-accessible protocol for 3D-printed splints using PLA and evaluation of user satisfaction and material limitations.

## Key findings

- Users reported high satisfaction with the splints' weight and ease of use but lower scores for durability and comfort due to material issues.
- PLA brittleness and poor breathability caused cracking and moisture buildup, affecting splint effectiveness.
- Printing times were long (9–19 hours per splint), and fit issues like pressure points were observed.

## Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) scanning and printing technologies enable the production of personalized rehabilitation splints, yet challenges such as scanning artifacts in complex anatomical areas (e.g., finger webs), lengthy post-processing, long printing times, and material limitations (e.g., brittleness and poor breathability) hinder routine clinical adoption. This feasibility study developed and evaluated a clinician-accessible protocol for fabricating cock-up wrist splints using 3D scanning (Creaform GO!SCAN 50 with VXelements 4.1), modeling (Materialise Magics), and fused deposition modeling printing with polylactic acid (PLA) on a MakerBot Replicator+. Five healthy participants wore the splints for one week, with user satisfaction assessed via the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0; average total score 4.14/5, range 3.75–4.42) questionnaire. An experienced occupational therapist provided expert feedback. High satisfaction was reported for weight (4.6/5) and ease of use (4.6/5), confirming advantages over traditional thermoplastic splints in lightness and esthetics. However, lower scores for durability (3.6/5), comfort (3.6/5), and effectiveness (3.6/5) stemmed from PLA brittleness (cracking under load or overtightening), rough surfaces despite vapor polishing, inadequate ventilation causing moisture buildup, and fit issues (e.g., pressure points). Printing time averaged 9–19 h per splint. The protocol demonstrates proof-of-concept feasibility for clinicians with basic computer techniques, but material constraints and process refinements are required for reliable application in patient populations.