Three-dimensional printing in rehabilitation medicine: Clinical applications, implementation challenges, and future directions from a low-resource setting

Three-dimensional (3D) printing has emerged as a transformative technology in rehabilitation medicine, enabling personalized orthoses, rapid prototyping, and point-of-care device fabrication. While high-income settings report growing clinical adoption, evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains limited, particularly with respect to real-world implementation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and system-level barriers. Existing evidence suggests that 3D-printed orthoses are usually comparable to conventional devices in biomechanical performance, with limited high-quality evidence demonstrating clear superiority. In this narrative review, we discuss clinical applications and implementation challenges of 3D printing in rehabilitation medicine, with particular emphasis on institutional pilot experience from Bangladesh. A structured literature search (2010-2025) was performed in PubMed and Scopus using predefined inclusion criteria focused on rehabilitation-oriented additive manufacturing. Bangladesh-specific pilot cohorts were incorporated to contextualize real-world feasibility. In a prospective descriptive cohort of patients with De Quervain’s tenosynovitis (n = 17 receiving 3D-printed orthoses), no device-related structural failures or adverse skin reactions were observed during six-week follow-up. The average fabrication turnaround time was 7 to 10 days compared with 1 to 2 days for conventional splints, highlighting workflow trade-offs in resource-constrained environments. Clinical literature indicates potential advantages of additive manufacturing in anatomical conformity, weight reduction, and user satisfaction; however, implementation in tropical LMIC settings introduces material durability concerns, particularly when using polylactic acid (PLA), which may be susceptible to thermal deformation and moisture-related degradation. Successful integration, therefore, depends not only on customization capability but also on climate-appropriate material selection, interdisciplinary collaboration, and structured end-user engagement. In conclusion, current evidence suggests potential for improved usability and satisfaction with 3D-printed orthoses, while biomechanical outcomes appear largely equivalent to conventional devices in most applications. Sustainable adoption in low-resource rehabilitation systems requires embedded engineering capacity, regulatory clarity, workforce development, and user-centered co-design frameworks.