Additive manufacturing has attracted keen interest in the medical field in recent decades, especially for bone regeneration. Many additive manufacturing processes have been used to print medical devices such as implants, prostheses, and surgical guides, and for surgical planning in different medical fields, especially orthopedic, maxillofacial and dental surgery. Many materials can be manufactured by 3D printing with metal, ceramic, polymer or composite materials. Composite materials with organic and mineral components have been investigated to mimic bone functional and structural characteristics. In addition to the chemical composition, the modeling and optimization of the design can be optimized to enhance the biological and mechanical performance of the printed scaffolds.

This review presents a comparative evaluation of different material/additive manufacturing processes, and describes the best compromises for targeted clinical applications. The advantages and drawbacks of each additive manufacturing process are described in light of the biological results and essential properties expected by patients and clinicians.

Statement of significance: 3D (bio)printing appears to be an outstanding manufacturing route to revolutionize patient care with personalized medicine. Moreover, there are growing trends in the use of 3D printing in the medical education field and for surgical planning to alleviate surgeon practice and optimize esthetic results. Many reviews have described the growth of the different additive manufacturing techniques developed over time, their advantages and drawbacks and the work required to develop an accurate printable biomaterial fitting the 3D additive manufacturing process and the expectations of the final users and beneficiaries. In this review, an emphasis is placed on the expectations of patients and clinicians regarding specific final clinical applications in craniomaxillofacial, orthopedic or dental fields for a specific biomaterial/additive material (AM) process couple. The primary focus of this review is a comparative analysis of the 4 main additive manufacturing processes used in bone tissue engineering: extrusion-based material, stereolithography, selective laser sintering and inkjet 3D printing. Qualitative and quantitative assessments using a performance index are calculated according to expected criteria for patient care, user-friendly handling, and the affordability of the process. We propose a guideline for users to choose the most appropriate material-process couple.

近几十年来，增材制造引起了医学领域的浓厚兴趣，尤其是在骨再生方面。许多增材制造工艺已被用于打印植入物、假体和手术导板等医疗器械，并用于不同医疗领域的手术规划，尤其是骨科、颌面和牙科手术。许多材料可以通过金属、陶瓷、聚合物或复合材料的 3D 打印来制造。已经研究了具有有机和矿物成分的复合材料来模拟骨骼的功能和结构特征。除了化学成分外，还可以优化设计的建模和优化，以增强打印支架的生物和机械性能。

本综述对不同材料/增材制造工艺进行了比较评估，并描述了针对目标临床应用的最佳折衷方案。根据患者和临床医生所期望的生物学结果和基本特性，描述了每种增材制造工艺的优缺点。

重要性声明：3D（生物）打印似乎是通过个性化医疗彻底改变患者护理的杰出制造途径。此外，在医学教育领域和手术计划中使用 3D 打印以减轻外科医生实践和优化美学效果的趋势越来越明显。许多评论描述了随着时间的推移开发的不同增材制造技术的发展、它们的优缺点以及开发适合 3D 增材制造工艺的精确可打印生物材料所需的工作以及最终用户和受益者的期望。在这篇综述中，重点放在了患者和临床医生对颅颌面特定最终临床应用的期望上，特定生物材料/添加剂材料 (AM) 工艺组合的骨科或牙科领域。本综述的主要重点是比较分析骨组织工程中使用的 4 种主要增材制造工艺：挤压材料、立体光刻、选择性激光烧结和喷墨 3D 打印。使用绩效指数的定性和定量评估是根据患者护理、用户友好处理和流程可负担性的预期标准计算的。我们建议用户选择最合适的材料工艺对。选择性激光烧结和喷墨3D打印。使用绩效指数的定性和定量评估是根据患者护理、用户友好处理和流程可负担性的预期标准计算的。我们建议用户选择最合适的材料工艺对。选择性激光烧结和喷墨3D打印。使用绩效指数的定性和定量评估是根据患者护理、用户友好处理和流程可负担性的预期标准计算的。我们建议用户选择最合适的材料工艺对。