The study, led by Emma Brown of the University of Quebec at Trois-Rivieres together with colleagues at the University of Montreal, the University of Montreal Hospital Centre Research Centre, the Ecole de Technologie Superieure, and the Montreal University Institute of Geriatrics Research Centre, set out to answer a deceptively simple question: if you give people both kinds of splints, which do they prefer, and which manufacturing process do they find more workable? Rather than recruiting patients, the team trained twenty occupational therapy students to fabricate both types of orthoses themselves, then had each participant wear each device for a full 24 hours. This design allowed the researchers to capture two perspectives at once: the wearer’s comfort and satisfaction, and the fabricator’s experience of learning and performing each production method.

The technical contrast between the two approaches is central to the findings. Thermoforming, the conventional method, relies on low-temperature thermoplastic sheets that become pliable when heated in water baths and are then shaped manually around the finger. The quality of the resulting splint depends heavily on the clinician’s skill, and the process generates scrap material while demanding the patient’s presence for fitting. 3D printing, by contrast, builds the orthosis layer by layer from a digital model. Once a design exists, the device can be printed without the patient in the room, scaled or modified digitally, and reproduced on demand. Proponents argue this could improve comfort through finer geometric control and expand access to well-fitted orthoses in settings where specialized fabrication expertise is scarce.

To measure satisfaction, the researchers used QUEST 2.0, the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology, a validated questionnaire widely used in rehabilitation research. Participants rated both devices after wearing them, and the team supplemented this with an in-house questionnaire probing ease of fabrication, perceived competence, quality of training, motivation, and the perceived usefulness of each technology. Practical production metrics, including material cost and the time required to make each orthosis, were also recorded. Statistical comparisons between the two device types were carried out with Student’s t-tests for parametric data and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for nonparametric data, a standard pairing for within-subject comparisons of this kind.

The results favored the printed splints on the study’s primary outcome. Overall satisfaction, captured by the total QUEST 2.0 score, reached 36.2 plus or minus 3.7 for the 3D-printed orthoses, compared with 32.0 plus or minus 5.5 for the thermoformed versions, a difference that was statistically significant with a p-value of 0.005. In practical terms, participants who had learned and used both methods consistently found the printed device the more satisfying one to wear over a full day of normal activity. Because every participant wore both orthoses, each person served as their own control, strengthening the comparison despite the modest sample size inherent to a pilot study.

The manufacturing data were equally striking. Direct labor time, the hands-on minutes a fabricator spends actually producing the device, averaged 3.4 plus or minus 1.0 minutes for the 3D-printed orthoses, against 5.8 plus or minus 2.6 minutes for the thermoformed ones, a reduction that was highly significant at p less than 0.001. While those numbers may look small on the surface, the researchers point out that in a busy clinic, where orthoses are fabricated repeatedly and therapist time is a scarce resource, shaving more than forty percent off direct fabrication labor compounds quickly. Notably, the acceptability of the fabrication method itself, how comfortable and workable participants found each process to learn and perform, came out similar for the two techniques, suggesting that the digital workflow does not impose a meaningful training burden on newcomers.

Perhaps most encouraging for advocates of digital rehabilitation tools was the enthusiasm surrounding the technology itself. Participants rated the perceived usefulness of 3D printing at 8.2 out of 10, with a standard deviation of 1.5, indicating that even in a training population encountering the method in an experimental context, the appetite for digital fabrication in clinical practice is strong. The authors argue that this combination, higher wearer satisfaction, shorter labor time, and high perceived usefulness, supports integrating digital technology into orthotic fabrication within rehabilitation services, and that the findings pave the way for properly powered clinical trials in patient populations.

The study’s limitations are those expected of a pilot. Twenty participants, all occupational therapy students rather than patients with trigger finger, wore each orthosis for only 24 hours, so the findings speak to early satisfaction and process feasibility rather than long-term clinical outcomes such as symptom resolution, skin tolerance, or device durability. Real patients vary in finger morphology, skin fragility, and adherence, and the ultimate test of 3D-printed orthoses will be whether the satisfaction advantage holds in randomized clinical comparisons against conventional care. Still, the authors are explicit that the goal of this work was to establish a foundation, and on that measure the study delivers: a reproducible protocol, validated outcome instruments, and statistically clear signals pointing toward the digital approach.

The broader implications extend beyond a single diagnosis. Trigger finger orthoses are one of many custom medical devices, from wrist splints to prosthetic sockets, now being reimagined through additive manufacturing. If digital fabrication can consistently deliver better-fitting, better-liked devices while reducing clinician labor and enabling remote or centralized production, the economics of rehabilitation care could shift meaningfully, particularly in underserved regions. Funded by a Strategic Planning Grant from the Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres and approved by the university’s Research Ethics Board, this pilot study offers an early but concrete data point that the century-old craft of hand-molding thermoplastic may soon have a serious digital rival, one that patients may actually prefer to wear.

Subject of Research: Comparison of 3D-printed and thermoformed finger orthoses for trigger finger treatment

Article Title: Comparison of 3D-printed and thermoformed orthoses for trigger finger: a pilot study

Article References: Brown, E., Dufort-Gagnon, L., Bedwani, S., Beauchemin, W., Hagemeister, N., Jean-St-Laurent, M., & Hamasaki, T. (2026). Comparison of 3D-printed and thermoformed orthoses for trigger finger: a pilot study. 3D Printing in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-026-00350-w

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s41205-026-00350-w

Keywords: 3D printing, trigger finger, orthoses, thermoforming, occupational therapy, assistive technology, rehabilitation, QUEST 2.0, additive manufacturing, pilot study, hand therapy, digital fabrication