Considerations for the value of three-dimensional printed (3DP) versus cadaveric specimens for anatomy education.

Abstract

We enjoyed reading the Brumpt et al. paper, which showed that a three-dimensional printed model (3DPM) of the ear was more effective than conventional cadaveric models for teaching anatomy. We would like to comment on the findings of this exciting study. In this case, the 3DPM of the ear was compared with dried bone models but not with a cadaveric specimen (with all adjacent soft tissues). The better results after the first test of students who used the 3DPMs were probably attributed to the optimized 3D representation of the ear anatomy. Also, the educational outcomes will likely be better if a more complex 3DPM is used, as it permits better visualization of the structures compared to the dried bone specimens. We certainly agree that 3DPMs have a remarkable ability to represent anatomy. Still, their effectiveness has not been proven superior to cadaveric specimens teaching complex anatomy. In conclusion, although we agree that 3DPMs have a high educational potential and can contribute to complex anatomy teaching, those models were not proven significantly more effective than cadaveric specimens in the Brumpt et al. study. The better effectiveness of 3DPMs compared to dried bone specimens (at the first test) does not mean those models are superior to specimens with retained soft tissues. Such cadaveric specimens permit visualization of complex structures and have proven valuable for teaching complex anatomy. Currently, the literature does not support the educational superiority of 3DPMs to those cadaveric specimens.