@article{10.37349/ebmx.2026.101360,
abstract = {Three-dimensional metal printing has made anatomical perfection readily achievable in orthopaedic reconstruction. Yet, as patient-specific implants transition from salvage solutions to routine applications, a critical question emerges: Does geometric precision improve long-term outcomes, or merely perfect existing problems? The article argues that customization defined by shape alone fails to address fundamental biological constraints, including stiffness mismatch, stress shielding, vascular compromise, and the inevitability of revision surgery. While additive manufacturing enables porous architectures and tailored mechanics, unchecked integration and over-conformity may jeopardize bone preservation and future surgical options. The article further highlights the professional and economic costs of patient-specific workflows and the limitations of static digital planning. True innovation, it is argued, lies not in achieving the “perfect fit,” but in designing implants that participate in bone biology and remain surgically defensible decades after implantation.},
author = {Traub, Frank and Jung, Beatrice and Busse, Tilmann and Demir, Eren and Wunderlich, Felix},
doi = {10.37349/ebmx.2026.101360},
journal = {Exploration of BioMat-X},
elocation-id = {101360},
title = {The customization paradox: Why geometric precision is no substitute for biological integration?},
url = {https://www.explorationpub.com/Journals/ebmx/Article/101360},
volume = {3},
year = {2026}
}