Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Would 3D Printed technologies be functionable enough to reinforce social…
Would 3D Printed technologies be functionable enough to reinforce social equity of physically disabled people in Sringfield?
3D printing as a whole (including bioprinting) has become more accessible to people across the world, which has allowed for many potential solutions to arise for people such as those with missing limbs or other physical disabilities.
Prices of prosthetics typically range from 5 dollars to 500 dollars, when constructed by FDM 3D printing techniques.
Combined with the fact that they can also be replaced often and at a moment's notice, amputees can constantly have access to these prostheses, even if they are on the less durable side. (this is something many patients have reported)
More than half of the 3D-printed upper limb prostheses designs are ‘open source’ and are available online. Anyone can download a design, criticize and improve the design and post his/her own version of the hand.
Wearers may not fully understand how to fully alter their prosthetic, but this is still very useful regardless.
Jose's 3D printed device was only $50, which is only 0.11% the cost of his previous myoelectric prostheses.
Oftentimes, these costs are not insured either, which means many more people are able to access 3D printed prosthetics, especially in Springfield (lets be real, no normal person can tank losing 42,000 dollars without struggling)
Ethical concerns as well as issues with the control / regulation of 3D printing and bioprinting have been debated heavily during recent years.
Organs becoming exchangeable alienable objects may increase health inequalities while pushing the need for ideal health.
This is the most prominent out of all the ethical concerns. Although it could potentially cause health inequalities, It could be beneficial to see how well 3D printed organs would function, and if we could eventually reduce costs for them, especially since 3D printing is still advancing rapidly.
The question of who controls or who manages bioprinting materials still remains afloat, which is one thing mentioned by many articles talking about 3D bioprinting.
Although regulation MAY not be necessary for normal 3D printed prosthetics, 3D bioprinting is still changing rapidly, which means it needs closer supervision.
Innovation is moving faster than the government. In other words, health care providers may take up 3D Printing without clear guidance and supervision.
3D printing is advancing rapidly; it is hard to constantly change it, especially in the medical field. When we reach a plateau in the advancement of 3D printing, that could be a good time to take it up and create guidelines around it.
Prosthetics and 3D bioprinting are extremely versatile, meaning it can customize itself to fit the needs of people with vastly different disabilities.
A common feature of 3D printed prosthetics is that the design can be designed towards the patient’s needs.
Whether it is by them or the person creating it, this improves the satisfaction of the patient, especially since cosmesis, comfort, and more are all customizable things while being the most desired traits of prosthetics.
3D printed bones are able to be scaffolds for your body to be encouraged to regenerate the missing bone again. (we regenerate bone material on our own). the scaffold is eventually replaced by the regenerated bone.
it is true that people could normally just wait for their bones to repair, but for people with more severe bone conditions, a solution like this is a ray of light and could change their lives entirely.
Although not on the life saving scale as organs, skin, cartilage, bladders, urethras, and vasculature are all able to be produced successfully.
This already created a huge solution for people with different kinds of physical conditions that would otherwise be challenging to repair
Issues regarding durability, function, or comfort are often reported by people with 3D printed prostheses, especially those with upper limb amputations.
Prosthetic sockets have to be perfectly aligned with the anatomy of the patient in order to be comfortable, and it very often causes discomfort for prostheses users if done wrong
Since it has to be constructed so precisely, many people have considered if regulation should help, rather than people making prosthetics independently. It suggests that clearer guidance could potentially increase how precisely fit the prosthetic socket is.
Overall prosthetic durability and comfortability can be improved as advancements are made. 52% of people with upper amputations rejected or abandoned their prostheses.
While simpler prosthetics (stumps) improve personal satisfaction often (due to the comfort being better) hurdling over daily tasks would be easier if they had the same comfort with controllable 3D prosthetics.
Amputees sometimes choose prosthetics that function more as a stump instead of a controllable prosthetic because its hard to get used to.
The reason for this is none other than because it is uncomfortable; potential solutions that have arisen may be to reduce the time they go without any prosthetics.
Most prosthetics do not have independent finger motion or a system for each finger, but instead, they have simultaneous finger movement whenever activated.
This often causes some issues with grabbing or gripping complex objects, or carrying out actions not typical in daily life.
-