3D Printing and Video for Neuroanatomy: What Did Students Learn?

Neuroanatomy asks students to remember many structures and specialist terms, while some parts of the brain are difficult to demonstrate in a teaching laboratory. Could a video lecture, a digital 3D model or a physical 3D-printed model help students retain the material? A study at the University of Sarajevo compared these approaches with a traditional demonstration using preserved specimens.

Key findings

• The study involved 72 first-year veterinary students divided into four teaching groups.
• Each group had a 45-minute learning session and took the same recall test immediately afterwards and again four weeks later.
• The mean overall score was 6.47 ± 1.89 for the video group, 6.31 ± 2.13 for the 3D-printed group, 5.44 ± 2.34 for the control group and 5.40 ± 2.13 for the digital 3D-model group.
• The difference between groups was statistically significant on the first test (p = 0.049), but not on the four-week follow-up (p = 0.069) or for the total scores (p = 0.051).
• The findings support considering video and 3D-printed models as teaching resources, but do not show that every technology is consistently better than traditional instruction.

Why compare neuroanatomy teaching methods?

Neuroanatomy covers complex structures of the central nervous system that can be difficult to dissect and demonstrate. Students need to connect the appearance and position of each structure with its name, and a list of terms alone may not make three-dimensional relationships easy to understand. Preparing and preserving anatomical specimens adds further practical challenges in veterinary education.

Digital resources and additive manufacturing offer different ways to present anatomy. Video can combine spoken explanation with visual information, while a digital 3D model can be viewed from different perspectives. A physical printed model can be handled and turned. But the appeal of a teaching tool is not, by itself, evidence that students remember more. The study therefore compared students' performance on the same test after four different learning sessions.

Study design and assessment

The research involved 72 first-year students in the integrated veterinary degree programme at the University of Sarajevo's Veterinary Faculty. Students were already assigned to practical-class groups. The groups were described as broadly equal in socio-demographic characteristics and first-semester achievement; a learning method was randomly assigned to each group. The teaching sessions took place in March 2022, with follow-up testing in April.

Each group attended a separate 45-minute learning session. The teaching covered the nervous system, the ventral surface of the brain and the origins of the brain nerves. Students completed the same multiple-choice questionnaire immediately after the lesson and again four weeks later. The assessment focused on the first level of the revised Bloom's taxonomy: remembering or recalling information. It was designed to assess recall of the terms and structures covered, not more complex learning outcomes such as analysis or application.

The control group received a descriptive classroom lecture with PowerPoint slides and a demonstration using preserved brain specimens. Students could handle the specimens, examine structures and discuss them with classmates. The video group watched a video lasting about 20 minutes. Students could watch it twice during the session, listening on their phones with earphones; discussion and interaction were encouraged.

For the digital 3D-model group, students viewed models on desktop computers. The paper reports that brain specimens were scanned using a Medit Identica T300 Dental 3D scanner, processed with Blender 2.9 and prepared for viewing on Sketchfab. Students in the 3D-printed group could handle and examine printed brain models.

3D printing methods and materials

The study used two additive-manufacturing technologies to produce the physical models. Fused deposition modelling (FDM) builds a part by depositing material in layers. In this study, FDM was used with PLA (polylactic acid) on an Ultimaker 3 printer. Stereolithography (SLA) uses an ultraviolet laser to form an object from liquid resin; the study used Grey Resin on a Formlabs Form 3 printer. Twelve printed brain specimens were produced for the teaching session.

The study used these technologies to make anatomy teaching aids. It did not compare their mechanical properties, test their durability using a standardized procedure or report a cost comparison. The engineering details matter because they describe how the models were made, but they should not be mistaken for a materials-performance study.

What did the test results show?

On the first test, the mean score was 6.90 ± 1.82 in the video group, 6.46 ± 2.38 in the 3D-printed group, 6.23 ± 2.31 in the control group and 5.95 ± 1.98 in the digital 3D-model group. The difference among groups on this test was statistically significant (p = 0.049).

At the four-week follow-up, the video group scored 6 ± 1.89 on average, the 3D-printed group 6.17 ± 1.94, the control group 4.71 ± 2.19 and the digital 3D-model group 4.8 ± 2.16. The group difference was not statistically significant at that point (p = 0.069). The p-value for the overall scores from both tests was 0.051, also not below the commonly used significance threshold of p < 0.05.

It is useful to distinguish a higher average from a statistically established difference. The video and 3D-printed groups had higher overall mean scores than the control group, and the paper identified video as the method with the best overall results. However, the statistically significant group difference was found on the first test only. The four-week assessment did not establish a significant difference between the teaching methods, so the results do not demonstrate that technology improved long-term recall with certainty.

Practical implications for educators and designers

Video and physical models engage students in different ways. The paper suggests that the video group could replay the material and take notes during the session, and that video combined visual and audio input. With a printed model, students could both see and touch the anatomical structures. These are plausible interpretations offered in the paper, not separately measured explanations for the test results.

For anatomy educators, the study provides a reason to consider video and 3D printing as resources that can supplement practical teaching, rather than assuming they must replace every preserved specimen. For engineers and product designers, it documents an education-focused workflow involving 3D scanning, digital model preparation and FDM or SLA manufacturing. It also illustrates how digital and physical representations can be used for a shared learning topic. The findings apply to this specific veterinary neuroanatomy lesson and recall assessment, not to every subject or learner.

Limitations and future research

The study was limited to 72 students, one 45-minute teaching unit and a small part of brain anatomy. The questionnaire was created for the study rather than taken from a standardized assessment. It tested recall of terms and structures, not broader understanding, application or analysis. The number of students completing each test also varied: for example, the video group had 22 students on the first test and 20 at follow-up.

The paper recommends that future studies include a larger sample, more extensive anatomical material and a longer study period. It also notes that student satisfaction with the teaching methods would be a useful measure to include. The results should be interpreted within the context of veterinary neuroanatomy teaching rather than as a universal ranking of digital learning tools.

Conclusion

This study suggests that video and physical 3D-printed brain models can be useful resources for teaching neuroanatomy, with some results favouring these methods over the traditional demonstration. The statistically significant difference was observed on the immediate test, not on the four-week follow-up or in the total scores. A measured takeaway is that video and 3D printing can be considered as complements to practical anatomy teaching, while larger and longer studies are needed to clarify their effects.

Frequently asked questions

Author: Adi Pandžić, PhD in Mechanical Engineering

This article summarises a published research paper; please refer to and cite the original paper. About the author

← All articles