3d printing case study ppt

• Case Studies
• Medical & Dental
• 3DP Applications
• Laser Cutters
• On demand manufacturing
• 3D Printing News Digest
• Entertainment
• Executive Interview Series
• Applications
• Post Processing
• 3D Scanners
• 3D Printers
• Construction
• Kickstarter, etc
• Open source
• 3D Platforms
• Art & Sculpture
• Consumer Products
• Stock Market
• 3D Software
• Market Insights
• Uncategorized
• 3D Printing
• Electronics
• Legal and Regulatory
• Crowd Funding

Mantle 3D printers reduce tooling lead times by 50%, new customers announced

US-based metal 3D printer manufacturer Mantle has expanded the reach of its 3D printing technology, including the P-200 metal 3D printer, with three new customers.  These new customers include Spectru…

Velo3D technology cuts lead-time of Upwing Energy’s gas-compressor module

US-based natural gas service provider Upwing Energy has leveraged technology from metal 3D printer manufacturer Velo3D to 3D print its Subsurface Compressor System (SCS) compressor module. By using Ve…

Evolve Additive Solutions launches program for 3D printing at high volume

Evolve Additive Solutions, a Minnesota-based 3D printer manufacturer, has launched a Production Assessment Program. “This is an exciting time in the growth of Evolve,” said Joe Allison, CE…

HP’s digital manufacturing offering ‘opening new markets’ to 3D printing service providers

Multinational printing firm HP has published a series of use cases that reflect how its 3D printers for manufacturing are increasingly ‘opening new markets’ to service bureaus.  For those making …

3D printed marine parts validated after successful tests on-board Endeavour oil tanker

3D printing service provider 3D Metalforge has successfully tested three different 3D printed parts on board ConocoPhillips Polar Tankers’ Endeavour oil tanker. As part of a pioneering project, 3D Met…

Enel’s Geyser project deploys 3D printing for geothermal plant replacement parts

Subscribe to our YouTube channel for the latest 3D printing video shorts, reviews and webinar replays. Italian renewable energy company Enel Green Power has developed replacement technical c…

Customized production in the packaging industry with Stratasys 3D printing

Marchesini Group S.p.A., an Italian manufacturer of automated packaging machinery, has adopted an entirely customized production business model using Stratasys 3D printing technology.  Located within …

3D printing used to protect bus drivers at Seattle Children’s Hospital

Californian rapid prototyping service provider GoProto and design and engineering specialist Function Foundry, have collaborated to help protect high-risk bus drivers at Seattle Children’s Hospital us…

Additive Manufacturer Green Trade Association commissions first research project

Global trade group Additive Manufacturer Green Trade Association (AMGTA) has announced a systematic review into the environmental sustainability of metal 3D printing. The organization’s first literary…

HİDROMEK reduces costs of machinery end-use parts with LOOP PRO 3D Printer

HİDROMEK, a manufacturer of construction machinery based in Turkey, is using the LOOP PRO 3D printer to produce end-use parts for its agricultural vehicles.  Seeking to reduce its downtimes and avoid …

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, a 3d printing short course: a case study for applications in the geoscience teaching and communication for specialists and non-experts.

• Reservoir Geomechanics Research Group, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

3D printing developed as a prototyping method in the early 1980s, yet it is considered as a 21st century technology for transforming digital models into tangible objects. 3D printing has recently become a critical tool in the geoscience research, education, and technical communication due to the expansion of the market for 3D printers and materials. 3D printing changes the perception of how we interact with our data and how we explain our science to non-experts, researchers, educators, and stakeholders. Hence, a one-day short course was designed and delivered to a group of professors, students, postdoctoral fellows, and technical staff to present the application of 3D printing in teaching and communication concepts in the geoscience. This case study was aimed at evaluating how a diverse group of participants with geoscience and engineering background and no prior experience with computer-aided modeling (CAD) or 3D printing could understand the principles of different 3D printing techniques and apply these methods in their respective disciplines. In addition, the course evaluation questionnaire allowed us to assess human perception of tangible and digital models and to demonstrate the effectiveness of 3D printing in data communication. The course involved five modules: 1) an introduction lecture on the 3D printing methods and materials; 2) an individual CAD modeling exercise; 3) a tour to 3D printing facilities with hands-on experience on model processing; 4) a tour to experimentation facilities where 3D-printed models were tested; and 5) group activities based on the examples of how to apply 3D printing in the current or future geoscience research and teaching. The participants had a unique opportunity to create a digital design at the beginning of the course using CAD software, analyze it and 3D print the final model at the end of the course. While this course helped the students understand how rendering algorithms could be used as a learning aid, educators gained experience in rapid preparation of visual aids for teaching, and researchers gained skills on the integration of the digital datasets with 3D-printed models to support societal and technical objectives.

Introduction

3D printing is a 21st century technology for transforming digital models into physical objects. This technology is rapidly evolving, with more access to 3D printing machines and materials ( Wohlers Report, 2019 ). This is an innovative tool in medical ( Baden et al., 2015 ) and biomedical sciences ( Hoy, 2013 ), engineering ( Meyers et al., 2016 ; Boyajian et al., 2020 ), and communication ( Baden et al., 2015 ; Malmström et al., 2020 ). 3D printing revolutionizes how we interact with our data and how we explain our science to non-experts ( Horowitz and Schultz, 2014 ). Creating repeatable, tangible models is emerging in the geoscience education and research as well as in the related industries, such as petroleum recovery, groundwater storage, and carbon dioxide sequestration ( Ishutov et al., 2018 ). One of the biggest advantages of 3D printing is that all the processes involved in the creation of a 3D object, from generating the design to obtaining the printed part, facilitate the learning of concepts and tools, which also develops creativity and communication skills. Earth science data are often modeled in 3D, and 3D printers can provide this 3D visualization and tangible aspect of digital data ( Figure 1 ).

FIGURE 1 . Major benefits of using 3D printing in geosciences. It is useful for developing creativity and design skills through 3D modeling. 3D printing is a convenient tool for rapid manufacture of learning and teaching aids. Any 2D or 3D model can be replicated for a better communication, especially among non-specialists. Any digital data can be reproduced with 3D printing, even if the physical sample does not exist anymore. Research ideas and concepts can be repeatedly tested on the 3D-printed samples. All data can be retrieved or repeated from the digital repositories, which include files of 3D-printed models.

3D printing or so-called additive manufacturing of an object involves deposition of a material layer by layer ( Squelch, 2017 ). Therefore, this technology enables manufacturing models in various sizes and proportions (e.g., small objects can be printed large, so that more details are visible or large objects can be scaled down, so that one can hold the planet in the hand). Sustainable learning through a tangible approach is critical for understanding of complex geologic ideas, where learners can collect, gather and evaluate information about the exterior of the model and internal structures ( Szulżyk-Cieplak et al., 2014 ). Moreover, the same model can be used to communicate these ideas to others, including non-experts in a technical subject ( Dadi et al., 2014 ). 3D printing is essential for commination with impaired people, especially students who require special needs for education ( Kostakis et al., 2015 ; Jo et al., 2016 ; Pantazis and Priavolou, 2017 ; Koehler et al., 2018 ). In the Earth science curriculum, those students can learn common topics such as volcanoes or plate tectonics by using 3D-printed models in the classroom or at home. Buehler et al. (2016) demonstrates an example of a short course for students with intellectual disabilities in an inclusive context that results in enhancing digital literacy skills and reducing stigmas about these individuals at a community level.

Application of 3D printing in high-school education has already shown enhanced haptic perception of the learning material. Elrod (2016) emphasized that if 3D printing would be used in the K-12 environment, students could be better prepared for careers in emerging fields of technology [e.g., science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM disciplines)]. Schelly et al. (2015) demonstrated that even a 3-day short course for middle- and high-school teachers from a variety of disciplines (sciences, engineering, and arts) gained a high interest in utilizing this technology in their classrooms. Chiu et al. (2015) presented a successful model for learning, self-learning, and mastery learning approaches for freshman students with different levels of technological literacy using 3D printers. Reggia et al. (2015) suggested that providing engineering students with an opportunity to perform a project-based design course using 3D printing was an essential curricular element in many engineering programs. Chien and Chu (2018) proposed that 3D printing could enable high-school students to improve their ability to transform from STEM to STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) using 3D printers and to create a bridging curriculum with respect to high-school and college students.

Roy and Brine (2017) developed a coursework model to build intellectual capital for the next generation who would vastly depend on 3D printing, because they would shape a smart community in both developing and developed economy context. Martin et al. (2014) explained an idea of “think globally, produce locally,” where 3D printing would become more affordable with the versatility of machines and the ability to engage students with many different STEM-based activities. Gatto et al. (2015) showed that engineering education is on the course of adapting to the social and industrial revolution brought by additive manufacturing, because the latter allowed for sharing digital data in repositories and repeatedly reproducing the data to test ideas and concepts ( Figure 1 ).

For the geoscience education, not many examples are found in the literature for using 3D printing in any full-time curriculum or short courses. Ford and Minshall (2019) demonstrate how teaching models of terrains, fossils, and mineral crystals can complement digital models for a better perception of 3D features. 3D printing is currently used in four geoscience areas, primarily for research and communication: paleontology, geomorphology, porous rocks, geomechanics ( Figure 2 ). These 3D-printed models help organizing a full description, classification, and preservation of geologic specimens. Resolution of 3D printers determines the accuracy of internal and external features of 3D-printed models and hence affects the repeatability of the digital design in different materials ( Figure 2 ). These characteristics are critical not only for creating teaching aids in the Earth Science curriculum, but also for conducting experimental research with 3D-pritned specimens ( Ishutov et al., 2018 ). 3D printing also has value for communication of geoscience to non-specialist audiences to convey technical information, to support legal arguments, and to provide general knowledge of the nature. Currently, there is no universal short course that can provide fast, but positive learning experience of digital modeling and 3D printing to understand and explain geologic concepts among both experts and generalists.

FIGURE 2 . Applications of 3D printing in the geoscience research areas: (A) paleontology, (B) geomorphology, (C) porous rocks, and (D) geomechanics. A blue chart indicates the characteristics of 3D-printed models that are critical for each of the geoscience areas. Materials used in a specific application have different physical and chemical properties, which affect the resolution of a 3D-printed model. 3D printer’s hardware and post-processing of 3D-printed models determine the accuracy of external and internal features. A combination of the three previous characteristics affects the repeatability of a digital design 3D-printed in multiple copies.

This course was developed to test how a group of participants from STEM disciplines, but with various academic backgrounds could perceive the fundamentals of available 3D printing techniques and materials and their relative merits. With little or no prior knowledge of CAD modeling and 3D printing, participants learnt about applications of 3D printing in studies of reservoir rocks ( Squelch 2017 ), fossils ( Rahman et al., 2012 ), geomechanics ( Hodder et al., 2018 ), geomorphology ( Hasiuk and Harding, 2016 ), and porous media ( Ishutov, 2019 ). This one-day short course was divided into five modules and involved students, postdoctoral fellows, technicians, and professors interested in current advances of 3D printing in research and teaching. In addition, participants explored the application of 3D printing in a technical communication. The objectives of the study included: 1) to evaluate if learners with versatile educational and cultural backgrounds could perceive the basic concepts of 3D printing techniques and material properties to provide an assessment of 3D-printed models for research in their respective discipline; 2) to test if fast learning of CAD modeling and 3D printing could help the participants utilize 3D-printed models to explain geologic concepts to generalist audiences; and 3) to prove that 3D-printed models were effective tools for the geoscience education.

Materials and Methods

The short course was designed for the participants without prior experience of CAD modeling or 3D printing. In addition, the course was open for students, professors, postdoctoral fellows, technicians, and research associates from the geoscience and engineering disciplines. The short course took place at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada and involved 50 participants. The course learning outcomes were: 1) to understand capabilities and limitations of different 3D printing techniques; 2) to demonstrate how to digitally design 3D-printable models using CAD software, web platforms, and computed tomography data; 3) to provide the assessment of digital models and their relative replicas 3D-printed from real data; and 4) to characterize how 3D printing can increase the effectiveness of teaching and data communication.

Course Organization and Materials

The short course was organized in five modules: 1) an introduction lecture on the 3D printing methods and materials; 2) an individual CAD modeling exercise; 3) a tour to 3D printing facilities with hands-on experience on model processing; 4) a tour to experimentation facilities where 3D-printed models are tested; and 5) group activities based on the examples of how to apply 3D printing in current or future geoscience research and teaching ( Table 1 ). Each module was taught by one of the four instructors, and facility tours were led by four instructors, two instructors per facility. All instructions on how to complete each module were organized in a digital e-book (pdf).

TABLE 1 . A brief description of topics covered in each module of the short course.

Module 1 included a lecture on the history of “rapid prototyping” and how 3D printing evolved as a tool for engineering industries. In addition, the workflow of creating a digital model and transferring it into a tangible object was covered. The model preparation for 3D printing was explained with examples of using printing specifications, such as the thickness of each layer, the vertical and horizontal dimensions, and the print speed. The lecture also contained post-processing methods, such as ultraviolet (UV) light curing or removal of support material that held the internal porous structure and external elements during printing to avoid deformation or damage of intricate designs. Instructors discussed 3D printing methods that differed by power source, resolution, precision, accuracy, build volume, materials, and price. The importance and applications of 3D-printed models were covered briefly for the areas of geoscience and engineering. At the end of the lecture, participants had a discussion session with instructors ( Figure 3A ).

FIGURE 3 . Photographs of the short course modules. (A) Module 1 “Overview of the 3D printing technology.” Course instructors presented a lecture on common additive manufacturing methods and materials and showed examples of 3D-printed models. (B) Module 2 “The art of making 3D-printable models.” Participants learned basic skills of CAD modeling using TinkerCAD. (C) Module 3 “Elko Garage Tour.” Live 3D printing process was shown to participants. (D) Module 4 “GeoPrint Tour.” Participants were shown industrial scale printing and experimental program performed with 3D-printed models. (E) Module 5 “Application of 3D printing in the geoscience.” Discussion of specific applications of geoscience models in edication and research.

Module 2 involved an individual CAD modeling exercise using an online platform on laptops or tablets ( Figure 3B ). The scale of 3D-printed models varied over the orders of magnitude: from nanometer-size features to the size of the 3D printer’s build volume. This activity was aimed at teaching the participants to create complex geological models (like rocks and fossils) using common shapes (e.g., cylinders, cubes) or multi-scale elements, which were then translated for 3D printing. At the end of this exercise, participants were able to export their model of choice for 3D printing and receive at the end of the course.

Module 3 represented a tour to the Elko Engineering Garage (University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada) that introduced the participants to the activities associated with creating and 3D printing digital designs as well as post-processing of 3D-printed models ( Figure 3C ). Participants were exposed a variety of 3D printers and post-processing tools, as well as they had an opportunity to investigate a 3D laser scanner. Instructors made connections of the material covered in the lecture, such as material properties, 3D printing resolution, and model dimensions with the real applications in workspace. Participants were able to observe the 3D printing process of the digital models that they designed in module 2 and had a hands-on experience on post-processing their models to make give them a smooth, finished look.

Module 4 involved a visit to the GeoPRINT facility (University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada), where an industrial-grade sand printer and a high-resolution stereolithography printer were located ( Figure 3D ). This tour introduced participants to two specific 3D printers used for geomechanical and flow research at Reservoir Geomechanics Research Group. Participants explored about the differences in material preparation, printing, and post-processing between these two technologies.

Module 5 included a group exercise on the comparison of CAD models for porous rocks, fossils and geomorphic features with their 3D-printed counterparts ( Figure 3E ). Participants assessed the differences in material finishes, accuracy of external and internal elements, and scales of 3D printing (using criteria in Figure 2 ). In addition, there was a discussion of potential application of 3D-printed models in the geoscience experiments to validate numerical simulations and complement existing laboratory tests. Instructors facilitated the discussion of 3D-printing techniques that participants have seen in modules 3 and 4 and how they could be applied to fundamental research in the areas of multi-phase fluid flow and reactive transport, discrete fracture networks, geomorphology, and paleontology ( Figure 3E ).

3D Printers and Software

Out of seven ASTM categories of 3D printing, four methods were shown in this short course: stereolithography, binder jetting, material extrusion, and material jetting. All 3D printers belonging to these categories were demonstrated in Modules 3 and 4. Materials used for demonstration of 3D printing techniques included polymers, plastics, sand, and resins.

The software used in module 2 for CAD modeling exercises was Autodesk TinkerCAD ( https://www.tinkercad.com ). It is a free online platform that requires only registration with email. The software used for processing of digital designs before 3D printing was Autodesk Meshmixer ( http://www.meshmixer.com ). It is a freeware that can be installed on most operating systems.

Post-Course Questionnaire

The course survey is proved to be one of the effective forms of analysis of the short course efficiency ( Chiu et al., 2015 ; Schelly et al., 2015 ; Meyers et al., 2016 ; Pantazis and Priavolou, 2017 ; Ford and Minshall, 2019 ; Assante et al., 2020 ). The surveys are usually conducted before and after the course to assess how learning objectives are fulfilled. In each module, the following criteria were used to build the course evaluation survey:

• fundamentals of 3D printing and its basic operating principles;

• advantages and disadvantages of 3D printing technologies;

• performance and functional constraints of 3D printing for specific applications.

• complete 3D-printing sequence of designing, fabricating, and measuring models;

• source of mismatch between digital and 3D-printed models.

• causes of errors and irregularities in 3D-printed models;

• hands-on experience of 3D printing in class for improved student understanding of subject matter.

• important 3D printing research challenges;

• resources to support experiments for teaching and classroom projects.

• understanding if humans learn better when using 3D-printed models;

• current and future 3D printing applications.

At the end of the course, instructors distributed an electronic evaluation form to all participants and asked them to complete it within 1 h. The questions in the survey were composed in a Google Docs form to allow for anonymous and individual response from each participant, who was required to indicate only their academic level. The post-course questionnaire was segmented into sections: 1) overall recommendation for the short course; 2) assessment of course materials (e-booklet, lecture slides, exercise instructions; 3) course content (cohesiveness of modules, ease of learning the material, laboratory tours, and visual aids); 4) time spent on each module; and 5) evaluation of instructors’ teaching abilities; 6) effectiveness of course learning outcomes. Section 1 responses were based on Yes/No scale. Responses in sections 2, 3, 5 were collected using the following scheme: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree. Responses in section 4 were registered using the following scheme: not enough, adequate, too much, no opinion. The last section was evaluated using Likert scale out of 5, where a higher value is a more positive response.

Results and Discussion

The short course involved 50 participants from geosciences and engineering ( Figure 4A ); it was expected to receive mixed comments about the course contents and organization of modules. Nonetheless, 97% of all participants responded that the course would be recommended to others ( Figure 4B ). In this case, others were referred to peer students, colleagues, and other academic staff. This outcome was positive to propose the course to various professional organizations as a customized workshop, e.g., for industry professionals interested in the use of 3D printing in research and technical communication. The instructors observed that despite the differences in age and academic background, the participants communicated with each other in a friendly manner. Based on the results of the post-course questionnaire, the short course outcomes were assessed for the adequacy and organization of the course materials, structure, and coherence of the course modules, and efficiency of the course instructors and learning objectives.

FIGURE 4 . Demographics of the short course participants. (A) Indication of the academic level and/or position. (B) Responses of participants from (A) to the question: “Will you recommend this short course to others?”

Course Materials

An e-book contained a set of short, descriptive instructions with images and figures about each module ( Figure 5 ) that was useful to most participants. Course objectives were clear, so that the short course agenda was understood by learners with different backgrounds (24 positive responses out of 32 responses in total). In addition, the survey showed that the e-book was a valuable component of the course as it helped navigating through activities and exercises (27 positive responses out of 33 responses in total). On the other hand, not all participants found the e-book visually appealing and suggested adding pseudo 3D cartoons that would visually simplify and outline different 3D printing processes (20 positive responses out of 33 responses in total; Figure 6 ). Other comments pointed out on the use of bolded text, underlining or different colors to highlight the key information in the e-book. Also, more than half of the class noted that activities were clearly defined by the instructors and suggested to include more details about the operation of software as numbered bullet points so there would be a step-by-step tutorial (21 positive responses out of 35 responses in total; Figure 6 ). A few additional notes were that the introductory lecture slides in module 1 were cohesive and well organized. For the next run of the course, instructors will prepare a short workflow with bullet points for each activity and exercise and will place them in the e-book as a support material. More images and snapshots will be added for each activity to allow the participants to navigate between the exercises.

FIGURE 5 . An example of the module instructions from the course e-book. The full version of the e-book was available for participants a day before the course. Each module contained synopsis and a set of exercises.

FIGURE 6 . Responses of participants for evaluation of the course materials, such as e-booklet and slides. All the course activities were described in the e-booklet provided on the short course day.

Course Content

The course content was developed using several approaches: lecture slides, individual exercises, group exercises, and facility tours. The majority of the class responded that modules were cohesive (29 positive responses out of 33 responses in total; Figure 7 ). Participants were mostly engaged during the visits to the Elko Garage and GeoPrint facilities (modules 3 and 4), because these tours improved their understanding of the 3D printing process (30 positive responses out of 32 responses in total). Observing the printing methods and interaction with 3D-printed models provided a motivation for the learners to incorporate this technology in their research, teaching, or other activities (29 positive responses out of 34 responses in total; Figure 7 ). In addition, the majority of participants could understand all aspects of digital design, processing, and post-processing of 3D-printed models via the CAD modeling exercise (module 2) (31 positive responses out of 34 responses it total). Instructors observed that even those participants who did not have any experience with digital modeling of simple shapes could learn it fast, because at the end of the exercise everyone was on the same level.

FIGURE 7 . Responses of participants for evaluation of the course content. Participants assessed each activity at the end of the short course. *A question about the advanced 3D printing course is whether participants would like to have a short course on the applications of 3D printing in their respective discipline (not geoscience).

The group exercise involving comparison of digital models with their 3D-printed counterparts and the discussion of applications in the geosciences (Module 5) was expected to be challenging, because the participants were divided into mixed groups of 10 people to avoid accumulating representatives of the same department and academic level in one group. E.g., one group might have consisted of two undergraduate students from civil engineering and geology, three professors from electrical engineering, computer engineering and geophysics, three postdoctoral fellows from mechanical engineering, and petroleum engineering, and two research associates from atmospheric science and computer science, respectively. Most of the class responded positively to such combination of groups, because it allowed them to share a broader spectrum of ideas given the versatility of backgrounds (32 positive responses out of 35 responses in total; Figure 7 ). Some participants responded that they would prefer to classify the groups by the department, so that they would share the same interest in 3D printing and might make the group work more cohesive. This model could be another option for the group activity, where the groups could be formed by the department only, but the course contents would need to be more general, rather than focusing on the geoscience and engineering applications.

Participants would also asked to have more group activities to share the knowledge learnt, which confirmed that this intentional split into mixed groups worked well for leaning the unknown concepts. A few people were not interested in the geoscience applications and would have liked to participate in the content related to their discipline only or in a more generic content. This was a viable comment, and more than half of the class responded that they would like to have an advanced 3D printing course to explore the applications in their relative subjects of interest (26 positive responses out of 30 responses in total; Figure 7 ). Perhaps a separate short course covering specific applications of 3D printing in STEM disciplines might be developed to satisfy this interest. The most expected comment was that participants were thinking of getting their own 3D printer to manufacture models for research, teaching, and communication.

Each module had a different time period for completion, because it depended on the speed of the instructor’s delivery and the pace of participants ( Figure 8 ). It was designed to spend more time on individual and group exercises (Modules 2 and 5), so that the pace between the participants could be averaged as some people needed more time to learn new tools. In general, almost all learners (29 out of 33) agreed that the 50-min lecture in module 1 was sufficient to grasp the main concepts. Some participants (12 out of 33) noted that they would need more time to go through the functionalities of the software in Module 2 to complete the CAD exercises. In future, this module could be timed in a different way, where the participants would have an extensive, detailed introduction into the software and then they would be given a set of exercises to complete. Also, for those who could complete a mandatory set of exercises faster, additional activities would be provided. For the group exercises (module 5), about half of the class completed their assignments on time, while a quarter of the class felt that the time could be reduced ( Figure 8 ). To adjust this module, more exercises would be provided, specifically a small section discussing case studies in the geoscience.

FIGURE 8 . Responses of participants for evaluation of the time spent on each module of the short course.

Efficiency of Instructors

The next set of questions in the survey was aimed at revealing any flaws in the style and structure of the instruction. It was found that the majority of the class was satisfied with the teaching style and delivery of the modules by instructors (28 positive responses out of 33 responses in total; Figure 9 ). One participant noted that it would be useful to have solutions for each exercise, mainly for the ones related to the group activity. The answers could not be compiled for each activity as they varied by the group and the amount of material covered in each case. A few participants would like to have more one-to-one communications with instructors, but it might not always possible, given the size of the class and time allocated for each activity. It is foreseen that the class size will be reduced to have more time assisting each participant in all activities, even though the majority of participants (31 out of 33; Figure 9 ) felt supported during the course.

FIGURE 9 . Responses of participants for evaluation of the instructors’ delivery of the short course.

The survey showed that instructors were knowledgeable (32 positive responses out of 33 responses in total) and well-prepared (30 positive responses out of 34 responses in total) for the course, which fulfilled the course objective of sustainable learning and communication through tangible models. It is confirmed that 3D printing promoted the curiosity among the learners and facilitated an interest in creation of a model simultaneously with the instructor. Developing creative potential entailed improving a problem-based approach to demonstrate theoretical concepts that could be accessible by different groups of participants. This short course demonstrated that diverse groups were able to assimilate, apply, and describe new knowledge more effectively, including collaborative and individual learning. There is a need in studying how these methods can complement traditional instruction in terms of retention of material and motivating learners to study and develop their communication and problem-solving skills.

Efficiency of Learning Objectives

The course learning objectives were evaluated during interactive exercises of the course as well as post-course questionnaire. After completion of each module, participants were asked to complete the same set of three questions based on the course objectives. Their responses were averaged using Likert scale, where more positive responses were approaching 5 and less positive responses were approaching 1 ( Table 2 ). Participants were scoring how each of the three objectives was fulfilled when they completed modules subsequently. It was evident that more confidence was gained toward the end of the short course when all three course objectives were assessed (increasing scores from Module 1 to Module 5 in Table 2 ). While not all participants had geoscience background, collaborative learning is proven to be effective in enhancing creativity and hence enabling a large class to adopt the new technology. Post-course questionaries demonstrated that faculty, students, research fellows, and technicians could effectively work in teams to understand basic concepts of 3D printing techniques and material properties. They used this information to provide an assessment of 3D-printed models and to generate ideas for research in their respective disciplines.

TABLE 2 . Comparison of student responses on fulfilling the course learning objectives.

Individual CAD modeling exercise (module 2) helped the participants understand how geological and engineering models could be designed and utilized to explain ideas and concepts to generalist audiences. In module 5, instructors provided an example of 3D-printed porous rock created from a digital model ( Figure 10 ). All participants were asked to use this workflow to characterize how the rock porosity could have been formed and to explain why the rock grains had angular or rounded geometry and how they were transported to form a larger formation. Participants with a geoscience background were assessing responses of participants that did not have any background in the geoscience. It was noted that comparison of images, 3D digital models, and 3D-printed samples altogether provided better understanding of the rock properties rather than each model separately. Also. participants with good technical background in CAD within the team could help teaching other teammates, providing additional peer learning element in the process.

FIGURE 10 . Workflow for generation of 3D-printed samples from digital models. Source data are either optical or CT images of natural rocks (e.g., Berea sandstone). Images are segmented into pores and grains; the grain volume is transferred to 3D printing software as a CAD model. Selected 3D printer creates a tangible model layer-by-layer (polymer in this example). Pore space is filled with support material (soft polymer) that is removed by post-processing.

Module 5 was very useful for synthesizing previous modules and providing exercises linking CAD modeling from module 2 with 3D printing methods presented in module 1 and materials observed in modules 3 and 4. Participants were asked to choose one model for which both CAD and 3D-printed models were available ( Figure 11 ). Their task was to prepare a 1-min presentation of the model intended for general audience. The exercise was aimed at evaluating if 3D-printed models could improve geoscience learning for non-specialists. This collaborative learning approach demonstrated that expertise from students with different backgrounds could contribute to the cognitive process. Instead of learning under the instructions of tutors, participants collaboratively worked and learnt together. Participants noted that those teammates without geoscience background provided more intuitive and comprehensive description of selected models. It might be due to the fact that specialists could not often formulate higher-level explanation of concepts and phenomena.

FIGURE 11 . Examples of 3D-printed models used in course exercises. (A) Fossil and rock specimens. (B) Geomorphology and porous models.

Post-course questionnaire showed that 3D printing was an efficient tool in teaching and communication geological data and hypotheses to many types of diverse audiences. This study proved that non-specialists could learn, understand, and explain scientific concepts without prior knowledge about them. This finding is important because 3D printing can be used in many university curricula where students with any background can learn sciences in any environment. In particular, tangible aspect of 3D-printed models is vital for the geoscience education where most of the data are in a 3D format. Future development of the short course will involve several examples of non-geoscience data (e.g., engineering, medicine) to challenge participants in interpretation of concepts that are far beyond their expertise. This approach will help identifying if 3D-printed models are useful in communicating more complex phenomena to non-specialist audience.

3D printing is an emerging technology in the geoscience that provides additional teaching support, enhances technical communication using visual aids, and enables repeatable experimentation in research. While the process of incorporating this technology into the regular curriculum in academic institutions may take years, short courses can help this process by improving student and faculty engagement and by developing skills for a more qualitative knowledge acquisition. The short course presented in this study was useful for a diverse group of participants including professors, students, postdoctoral fellows, and technicians from the geoscience and engineering disciplines, because it allowed them to communicate geological concepts using digital models and their tangible counterparts. Participants demonstrated that this technology allowed them having the capacity for modification and sharing digital data and supporting educators who wanted to produce teaching models without prior expertise and in a rapid manner.

While this one-day short course had five modules, participants acknowledged that the time spent on each module was adequate as the modules contained the right amount of instructions and activities. It was designed in a way that participants would create their digital model, learn about different 3D printing techniques, observe how these techniques worked live and how 3D-printed models were experimented with in the laboratory, and finally 3D print their own model and discuss its properties. It was noted by the participants that course materials, such as e-booklet and slides with instructions, helped them digesting technical information in a cohesive way.

The main objectives of the short course was fulfilled, because the majority of participants responded that they would start using 3D printing for their research, teaching, or communication. Moreover, many participants had an interest in taking an advanced short course on the applications of this technology in their respective disciplines and to recommend this short course to others. Each module can certainly be modified and adjusted according to the background of the audience. This short course can be a primer for educators willing to introduce creative modeling in their teaching schedule and prepare students for problem-solving skills using tangible models. Making testable analogs of natural phenomena for the geoscience researchers is critical and can be achieved through acquiring CAD modeling skills in this course. Besides creating visual and teaching aids, this technology is a powerful tool in communication, as shown in the short course, because the participants with diverse academic backgrounds could discuss ideas and concepts without prior knowledge about them, only using 3D-printed models.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from the relevant individuals for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author Contributions

SI was the primary designer of the short course contents and the paper outline. He presented a poster at 2019 American Geophysical Union Conference on that study. SI developed exercises for the short course and prepared introduction and methods sections. KH developed presentation slides for the short course and wrote sections on results and discussion. RC was responsible for the introduction and conclusions. Figures were collected and analyzed by all authors. GZ-N was responsible for the lab tours.

The course was partially funded by MIP-CONACYT-280097 Grant, Mexico and NSERC 549236, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. The funds covered the costs of 3D-printed models for participants of the short course.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the University of Alberta and Faculty of Engineering for the opportunity to host this short course on campus. Our special gratitude is to the Elko Engineering Garage for providing a demonstration tour and 3D printing the short course models. We are grateful to the Reservoir Geomechanics Research Group [RG] 2 for support in preparation of this course. We also thank NSERC for support in continuous running of GeoPRINT GeoInnovation Environment at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

Assante, D., Cennamo, G. M., and Placidi, L. (2020). “3D Printing in Education: an European Prospective,” in Proceedings from the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) . Porto: Portugal , 1133–1138.

Google Scholar

Baden, T., Chagas, A. M., Gage, G., Marzullo, T., Prieto-Godino, L. L., and Euler, T. (2015). Open Labware: 3-D Printing Your Own Lab Equipment. Plos Biol. 13, e1002086. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002086

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Boyajian, M. K., Lubner, R. J., Roussel, L. O., Crozier, J. W., Ryder, B. A., and Woo, A. S. (2020). A 3D Printed Suturing Trainer for Medical Students. Clin. Teach. 17, 1–5. doi:10.1111/tct.13176

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Buehler, E., Comrie, N., Hofmann, M., McDonald, S., and Hurst, A. (2016). Investigating the Implications of 3D Printing in Special Education. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 8, 1–28. doi:10.1145/2870640

Chien, Y.-H., and Chu, P.-Y. (2018). The Different Learning Outcomes of High School and College Students on a 3D-Printing STEAM Engineering Design Curriculum. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 16, 1047–1064. doi:10.1007/s10763-017-9832-4

Chiu, P. H. P., Chiu Lai, K. W., Fan, T. K. F., and Cheng, S. H. (2015). “A Pedagogical Model for Introducing 3D Printing Technology in a Freshman Level Course Based on a Classic Instructional Design Theory,” in Proceedings From the IEEE Frontiers In Education Conference (FIE) . El Paso, TX, USA , 1–6. doi:10.1109/FIE.2015.7344287

Dadi, G. B., Goodrum, P. M., Taylor, T. R., and Maloney, W. F. (2014). Effectiveness of Communication of Spatial Engineering Information through 3D CAD and 3D Printed Models. Vis. Eng. 2, 114. doi:10.1186/s40327-014-0009-8

Elrod, R. E. (2016). Classroom Innovation through 3D Printing. Libr. Hi Tech. News , 33 (3), 5–7. doi:10.1108/LHTN-12-2015-0085

Ford, S., and Minshall, T. (2019). Invited Review Article: Where and How 3D Printing Is Used in Teaching and Education. Addit. Manuf. 25, 131–150. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.028

Gatto, A., Bassoli, E., Denti, L., Iuliano, L., and Minetola, P. (2015). Multi-disciplinary Approach in Engineering Education: Learning with Additive Manufacturing and Reverse Engineering. Rapid Prototyping J. 21, 598–603. doi:10.1108/RPJ-09-2014-0134

Hasiuk, F., and Harding, C. (2016). Touchable Topography: 3D Printing Elevation Data and Structural Models to Overcome the Issue of Scale. Geology. Today. 32, 16–20. doi:10.1111/gto.12125

Hodder, K. J., Nychka, J. A., and Chalaturnyk, R. J. (2018). Process Limitations of 3D Printing Model Rock. Prog. Additive Manufacturing 3, 172–182. doi:10.1007/s40964-018-0042-6

Horowitz, S. S., and Schultz, P. H. (2014). Printing Space: Using 3D Printing of Digital Terrain Models in Geosciences Education and Research. J. Geosci. Education. 62 (1), 138–145. doi:10.5408/13-031.1

Hoy, M. B. (2013). 3D Printing: Making Things at the Library. Med. Ref. Serv. Q. 32 (1), 93–99. doi:10.1080/02763869.2013.749139

Ishutov, S. (2019). Establishing Framework for 3D Printing Porous Rock Models in Curable Resins. Transp Porous Med. 129, 431–448. doi:10.1007/s11242-019-01297-9

Ishutov, S., Jobe, T. D., Zhang, S., Gonzalez, M., Agar, S. M., Hasiuk, F. J., et al. (2018). Three-dimensional Printing for Geoscience: Fundamental Research, Education, and Applications for the Petroleum Industry. Bulletin. 102, 1–26. doi:10.1306/0329171621117056

Jo, W., Hee, I., J., Harianto, R. A., So, J. H., Lee, H., Ju Lee, H., et al. (2016). Instead of Seeing and Hearing, Students Can Use Their Sense of Touch to Recognize the 3D Tactile Aids, Which Might Improve Their Learning and Memory Processes. J. Vis. Impairment Blindness. 110, 115–121. doi:10.1159/000390709

Koehler, K. E., Wild, T. A., and Tikkun, S. (2018). Implications of 3-D Printing for Teaching Geoscience Concepts to Students with Visual Impairments. J. Sci. Educ. Stud. Disabil. 2, 49–81. doi:10.14448/jsesd.10.0004

Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., and Giotitsas, C. (2015). Open Source 3D Printing as a Means of Learning: An Educational experiment in Two High Schools in Greece. Telematics Inform. 32, 118–128. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2014.05.001

Malmström, H., Enger, J., Karlsteen, M., and Weidow, J. (2020). Integrating CAD, 3D-Printing Technology and Oral Communication to Enhance Students' Physics Understanding and Disciplinary Literacy. Eur. J. Phys. 41, 065708. doi:10.1088/1361-6404/aba6bd

Martin, R. K., Bowden, N. S., and Merril, C. (2014). 3D Printing in Technology and Engineering Education. Technol. Eng. Teach. 73, 30–35. doi:10.1163/9789004415133_006

Meyers, K. L., Morgan, A. S., and Conner, B. P. (2016). 3D Printing to Introduce Design in a Cornerstone Project. Glob. J. Eng. Educ. 18, 22–29. doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-0946-2_2

Pantazis, A., and Priavolou, C. (2017). 3D Printing as a Means of Learning and Communication: The 3 Ducation Project Revisited. Telematics Inform. 34, 1465–1476. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.06.010

Rahman, I. A., Adcock, K., and Garwood, R. J. (2012). Virtual Fossils: a New Resource for Science Communication in Paleontology. Evo Edu Outreach 5, 635–641. doi:10.1007/s12052-012-0458-2

Reggia, E., Calabro, K., and Albrecht, J. (2015). “A Scalable Instructional Method to Introduce First-Year Engineering Students to Design and Manufacturing Processes by Coupling 3D Printing with CAD Assignments,” in Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition . Seattle, WA . doi:10.18260/p.23447

Roy, D., and Brine, J. (2017). “3D Printing for Multidisciplinary Education: a Technology with Diverse Potential,” in Proceedings Of the INTED2017 Conference . Valencia, Spain . doi:10.21125/inted.2017.0039

Schelly, C., Anzalone, G., Wijnen, B., and Pearce, J. M. (2015). Open-source 3-D Printing Technologies for Education: Bringing Additive Manufacturing to the Classroom. J. Vis. Languages Comput. 28, 226–237. doi:10.1016/j.jvlc.2015.01.004

Squelch, A. (2017). 3D Printing Rocks for Geo-Educational, Technical, and Hobbyist Pursuits. Geosphere 14, 360–366. doi:10.1130/GES01364.1

Szulżyk-Cieplak, J., Duda, A., and Sidor, B. (2014). 3D Printers—New Possibilities in Education. Adv. Sci. Techn. Res. J. 8, 96–101. doi:10.12913/22998624/57510.12913/22998624/568

Wohlers Report (2019). 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing. ISBN 978-0-9913332-5-7.

Keywords: 3D printing, learning aid, visualization, reservoir, porous rock, geomodeling, fossils, geomorphology

Citation: Ishutov S, Hodder K, Chalaturnyk R and Zambrano-Narvaez G (2021) A 3D printing Short Course: A Case Study for Applications in the Geoscience Teaching and Communication for Specialists and Non-experts. Front. Earth Sci. 9:601530. doi: 10.3389/feart.2021.601530

Received: 01 September 2020; Accepted: 13 May 2021; Published: 28 May 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Ishutov, Hodder, Chalaturnyk and Zambrano-Narvaez. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Sergey Ishutov, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

3D Printing in Geology and Geophysics: A New World of Opportunities in Research, Outreach, and Education

CASE STUDY REVIEW:

Real use cases of metal 3d printing for tooling .

Tuesday, December 5 at 2 PM EDT - 30 minutes

In this presentation, we will discuss real-world examples of how manufacturers use metal 3D printing technologies for tooling.

Real data on cost and lead time savings compared to traditional moldmaking processes will be presented.

Webinar agenda:

Register for this free webinar

©2023 Mantle. All rights reserved.

Environmental and Financial Performance Evaluation in 3D Printing Using MFCA and LCA pp 31–68 Cite as

Case Study Applying the Methodology in a 3D Printing Process

• Tiago Yuiti Kamiya 4 ,
• Marcell Mariano Corrêa Maceno 5 &
• Mariana Kleina 6  
• First Online: 30 March 2021

265 Accesses

2 Citations

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology ((BRIEFSAPPLSCIENCES))

This book is structured around the assessment of financial and environmental performance in the 3D printing process. In this sense, this chapter’s objective is to demonstrate the application of the methodology presented in the previous chapter through the use of a case study of printing a part with two different types of filaments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

ACV BRASIL, SIMAPRO (2020). Available: https://www.acvbrasil.com.br/software/simapro . Accessed in: 12 Jan 2020

E.L. Cano, J.M. Moguerza, A. Redchuk, Process mapping with R, in Six Sigma with R . (Springer, New York, NY, 2012), pp. 51–61

Chapter   Google Scholar  

A. Carvalho et al., From a literature review to a framework for environmental process impact assessment index. J. Clean. Prod. 64 , 36–62 (2014)

Article   Google Scholar  

F. Cerdas et al., Life cycle assessment of 3D printed products in a distributed manufacturing system. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (S1), S80–S93 (2017)

A.N. Dibofori-Orji, S.A. Braide, Emission of NOx, Sox and CO from the combustion of vehicle tyres in an abattoir. J. Nat. Sci. Res. 3 (8), 60–62 (2013)

Google Scholar  

N.K. Dixit, R. Srivastava, R. Narain, Comparison of two different rapid prototyping system based on dimensional performance using grey relational grade method. Procedia Technol. 25 , 908–915 (2016)

I. Gibson, D. Rosen, B. Stucker, Additive Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing (Springer, Berlin, 2014)

M. Goedkoop, R. Spriensma, The Eco-indicator 99: A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Assessment, Methodology Report (PRé Consultants, 2000)

I.L.C.D. Handbook, Analysis of existing environmental impact assessment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment, in Joint Research Center-European Commission (2010)

ISO 14044, Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines (International Organization of Standardization, 2006)

ISO 14051, Environmental Management—Material Flow Cost Accounting—General Framework (International Standard 14051, Geneve, 2013)

O. Jolliet et al., IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8 (6), 324 (2003)

R.M. Jou et al., Biogenic fraction in the synthesis of polyethylene terephthalate. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 388 , 65–68 (2015)

G.P. Kumar, S.P. Regalla, Optimization of support material and build time in fused deposition modeling (FDM), in  Applied Mechanics and Materials , (Trans Tech Publications, 2012), pp. 2245–2251

C. Lamnatou, M. Smyth, D. Chemisana, Building-integrated photovoltaic/thermal (BIPVT): LCA of a façade-integrated prototype and issues about human health, ecosystems, resources. Sci. Total Environ. 660 , 1576–1592 (2019)

S. Madival et al., Assessment of the environmental profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell containers using LCA methodology. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (13), 1183–1194 (2009)

O.A. Mohamed, S.H. Masood, J.L. Bhowmik, Mathematical modeling and FDM process parameters optimization using response surface methodology based on Q-optimal design. Appl. Math. Model. 40 (23–24), 10052–10073 (2016)

ÔMICROM, Calibrador de Folga (2018). Available: http://omicrom.com.br/geral/calibrador-de-folga/ . Accessed: 12 Jan 2019

A.C.B. Passuello et al., Aplicação da avaliação do ciclo de vida na análise de impactos ambientais de materiais de construção inovadores: estudo de caso da pegada de carbono de clínqueres alternativos. Ambiente Construído: Revista Da Associação Nacional De Tecnologia Do Ambiente Construído 14 (4), 7–20 (2014)

K.N. Shah, N.S. Varandani, M. Panchani, Life cycle assessment of household water tanks—a study of LLDPE, mild steel and RCC tanks. J. Environ. Prot. 7 (5), 760 (2016)

G.A. Silva, L.A. Kulay, in Avaliação do ciclo de vida , ed. by A. Vilela Junior, J. Demajorovic, Modelos de ferramentas de gestão ambiental : desafios e perspectivas para as organizações (Senac, São Paulo, 2006)

J.V. Spadaro, A. Rabl, Estimates of real damage from air pollution: site dependence and simple impact indices for LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 4 (4), 229 (1999)

E.T.H. Vink, et al., Applications of life cycle assessment to NatureWorks™ polylactide (PLA) production. Polym. Degrad. Stability 80 (3), 403–419 (2003)

World Health Organization, Air Quality Guidelines for Particulate Matter, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide (2005)

J.W. Zhang, A.H. Peng, Process-parameter optimization for fused deposition modeling based on Taguchi method, in Advanced Materials Research , (Trans Tech Publications, 2012), pp. 444–447

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Production Engineering Postgraduate Course, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil

Tiago Yuiti Kamiya

Marcell Mariano Corrêa Maceno

Mariana Kleina

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tiago Yuiti Kamiya .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Kamiya, T.Y., Corrêa Maceno, M.M., Kleina, M. (2021). Case Study Applying the Methodology in a 3D Printing Process. In: Environmental and Financial Performance Evaluation in 3D Printing Using MFCA and LCA. SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69695-5_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69695-5_3

Published : 30 March 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-69694-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-69695-5

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Digital transformation Proposal
• Digital Transformation Audit
• Digital Transformation Boost
• Climate Change & Sustainability
• Change Management
• Risk Management
• Innovation budget consultancy
• Consultancy in solution development
• Risk monitoring of job-site
• Predictive Maintenance
• Industrial IoT
• Human Oriented Values
• Data Management
• Smart Construction Solution

3D Printing in Construction 2024 Guide + 6 Examples and Case Studies

Over the past decade, 3D printing has become a buzzword, and for good reason. Although 3D printing in Construction was first created with the goal of product development, it has evolved to the point where it has emerged as a major player in a number of industries, such as the construction industry.

3D printing in Construction is a new technology that replaces some manual work with a machine that builds and assembles structures. This can be a more cost-effective, convenient, and ecologically friendly method of creating new structures. Understanding the advantages of 3D printing in Construction might help you evaluate whether the technology will help you expedite operations and boost client satisfaction.

The purpose of this article is to learn about 3D printing in Construction and review 6 case studies.

Table of Contents

What is a 3D Printed Building?

A building that is made utilizing additive manufacturing processes, more specifically 3D printing in Construction, is referred to as a 3D printed building, 3D printed structure, or 3D printed construction. In order to create the structural elements of a structure, materials, usually concrete or other kinds of construction-grade materials, are deposited one layer at a time.

Large-scale 3D printers that can extrude the building material in a regulated manner in accordance with a pre-programmed design are often used in the process of 3D printing buildings. The material is deposited layer by layer as the printer builds the structure according to a digital model or design of the construction.

3D printing in Construction, also known as additive manufacturing, has emerged as a transformative technology in various industries, including the construction sector. Here are some reasons why 3D printing in Construction is important:

Speed and Efficiency : 3D printing in Construction makes construction operations quicker and more effective. The building of complicated structures using 3D printing can be done quickly and in a fraction of the time it would take to use traditional construction methods. Construction schedules can be greatly shortened as a result, and productivity can rise.

Cost Reductions : 3D printing in Construction can result in cost savings by automating the construction process. It decreases the need for physical labor, cuts down on waste, and maximizes resource use. Furthermore, on-site construction of structures using 3D printing can be done to save on shipping expenses associated with using prefabricated components.

Design Freedom : 3D printing in Construction offers immense design flexibility. It allows architects and engineers to create intricate and customized designs that would be challenging or impossible to achieve with traditional construction methods. This technology enables the construction of complex geometries, organic shapes, and unique architectural features

Sustainability : It’s becoming more and more vital to use sustainable construction methods, and 3D printing in Construction can help with that. Reducing construction waste, utilizing less energy, and using eco-friendly materials are all achievable with 3D printing. The careful management of material use also contributes to maximizing resource efficiency.

Customization & Adaptability : With the aid of 3D printing in Construction, it is now simpler to alter structures to meet particular needs. When building in distant or difficult regions or in areas subject to natural disasters, this level of adaptability is very beneficial. Rapid prototype and iterative design procedures are made possible by 3D printing in Construction, simplifying necessary alterations and advancements.

In conclusion, 3D printing in Construction has the potential to completely transform the construction sector by providing cost-effective, sustainable, and personalized construction solutions while also introducing novel techniques and streamlining processes. Technology’s influence on construction will probably get even more profound as it develops.

Guide to 3D Printing in Construction

3D printing in construction revolutionizes traditional building methods by layering materials to create structures. This concise guide outlines key steps for successfully implementing 3D printing in construction projects.

• Design Phase: Begin with a comprehensive design that considers structural integrity, material requirements, and project specifications. Collaborate with architects and engineers to create a 3D model compatible with construction-grade materials.
• Material Selection: Choose suitable materials for 3D printing, emphasizing durability, cost-effectiveness, and compatibility with the chosen printing technology. Common materials include concrete mixtures, polymers, and composite materials tailored for construction purposes.
• Printing Technology: Select an appropriate 3D printing technology based on project scale and requirements. Options range from robotic arms and gantry systems to large-scale 3D printers. Consider factors such as printing speed, precision, and build volume.
• On-Site Preparation: Prepare the construction site by setting up the 3D printing equipment and ensuring a controlled environment. Calibrate the printing system, taking into account environmental conditions such as temperature and humidity.
• Printing Process: Initiate the printing process according to the programmed design. Monitor the construction in real-time, addressing any issues that may arise. Adjust parameters as needed to ensure the accurate layering of materials.
• Post-Processing: After the printing is complete, conduct necessary post-processing tasks. This may include removing support structures, surface finishing, and ensuring the structure meets quality standards.
• Quality Assurance: Implement a robust quality assurance process to verify structural integrity and adherence to design specifications. Conduct inspections, material testing, and structural assessments to guarantee the safety and longevity of the printed structure.
• Regulatory Compliance: Ensure compliance with local building codes and regulations governing 3D-printed structures. Collaborate with regulatory bodies to obtain necessary approvals and certifications for the construction project.
• Maintenance and Monitoring: Establish a maintenance plan and implement monitoring systems to track the long-term performance of the 3D-printed structure. Periodic assessments can identify potential issues and ensure the structure’s continued safety and functionality.

By following these steps, construction professionals can navigate the 3D printing process efficiently, creating innovative structures with reduced construction time and costs. Stay informed about advancements in technology and materials to continually enhance the effectiveness of 3D printing in construction.

Examples of 3D Printing in Construction

Innovations in 3D printing are reshaping the construction landscape, offering unprecedented possibilities in design, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. This section explores notable examples where 3D printing has been employed to create structures, from residential homes to intricate bridges, demonstrating the transformative potential of this technology in the construction industry.

1. Tecla House

Architects : MCA Architects

City : Ravenna, Italy

Project Year : 2021

Photographer : Iago Corazza ©

Tecla House, Printed in Massa Lombarda, Italy, Tecla is a combination of the words technology and clay and inspired by the historical cities of Italy and to create a link between the past and today’s technology, the home was designed by Mario Cucinella Architects and constructed and engineered by Wasp using clay sourced from a nearby riverbed.

The Building is formed of two connected dome-shaped volumes with a ribbed outer wall that is made up of 350 stacked layers of 3D-printed clay. The clay layers are arranged in wavy layers that provide structural stability and a thermal barrier.

The prototype was built utilizing a multilayer, modular 3D printer with two synchronized arms, each with a 50-square-meter printing surface capable of manufacturing components at the same time.

According to the construction team, employing this technique, housing modules may be produced in 200 hours while consuming an average of six kilowatts of energy and reducing typical construction waste almost totally.

Tecla is comprised of two continuous parts that combine to form two circular skylights that emit “zenith light” through the use of a sinuous and uninterrupted sine curve.

The unusual shape of Tecla, including its complex geometry and external ridges, is a testament to 3D printing’s capability of balancing intricate design and structural stability

Inside, Tecla includes a combined living room and kitchen, as well as a sleeping area with amenities, spanning an area of about 60 square meters. The furnishings, partially 3D printed from local soil, are designed to be recyclable or reusable, fitting into the raw-earth building, in line with the core values of this circular house model.

Tecla was developed as part of an eco-sustainability research study that looked to bioclimatic principles and vernacular architecture and construction to produce low-carbon homes, and that shows a beautiful, healthy, and sustainable home can be built by a machine, giving the essential information to the local raw material.

2. House Zero

Architects : Lake Flato Architects

Built by : ICON

City : Austin. Texas

Project Year : 2022

Photographer : Casey Dunn ©

The “House Zero” idea, created by Texas-based Lake | Flato Architects, was unveiled by construction technology company I CON. It is the first project in ICON’s “Exploration Series,” which aims to “shift the paradigm of homebuilding” by highlighting the architectural possibilities made possible by additive manufacturing and creating new design languages. The house’s material honesty blends the expressiveness of robotic construction methods with the textures of natural wood to create a timeless design.

The home is situated in a single-family residential neighborhood in East Austin, Texas, and was built using ICON’s Vulcan construction system.

The technique uses 3D printing that mechanically dispenses material layers according to a computer program, to build the 2,000 square foot (186 square meter) house’s walls. Ten days were needed to print the 3D-printed wall components.

The walls are reinforced with steel and covered with a special material ICON called Lavacrete, which resembles cement and increases insulation while being airtight.

According to Jason Ballard, co-founder and CEO of ICON, “House Zero is ground zero for the emergence of entirely new design languages and architectural vernaculars that will use robotic construction to deliver the things we need from our housing: comfort, beauty, dignity, sustainability, attainability, and hope.”

ICON claims that the home was constructed utilizing biophilic design principles and that “naturalistic circulation routes throughout the home” are created by the smooth curves of the 3D-printed support walls.

In addition to being able to build houses faster, the technology could mean that homes like this could be built at lower cost.

3. 3D Printed Two Story House

Created by : Kamp C

Built by : COBOD

City : Austin, Texas

Photographers : Kamp C © & Jasmien Smets ©

Belgian company Kamp C has 3D-printed  with Europe’s biggest 3D printer an entire two-story house. featuring 90 square meters, the house was printed in one piece with a fixed printer, making it the world’s first.

According to Kamp C project manager Emiel Ascione, “What makes this house so unique is that we printed it with a fixed 3D concrete printer.”

The two-story 3D-printed house is three times more durable than a house made of lightweight building blocks. According to Marijke Aerts, project manager at Kamp C, “the compressive strength of the material is three times higher than the classic rapid building block.” It will be examined whether the solidity will be maintained over time in this first house, which is a test structure.

There was very little shrinkage reinforcement required, except from the fibers already present in the concrete. Concrete formwork is unnecessary because of the printing technology. The amount of time, money, and material saved is reportedly 60% as a result. In the future, a house might, for instance, be printed in just two days. The house at Kamp C will be printed in a little under three weeks if all the printing days are added up.

The European C3PO project, which seeks to hasten the use of 3D printing in Construction in Flanders, Belgium, made it possible to construct the current home.

According to the company, 3D printing in Construction could aid architects in avoiding blunders.

The utilization of BIM technology is required when using the print process, according to Aerts.

In a sense, you build your house upfront during the design stage. Numerous potential blunders can be avoided, she continued.

“Many potential expenses can be avoided. Once you have a nice design, it is fairly simple to adjust some of the parameters.

4. Milestone Project

Architects : Houben & Van Mierlo Architects

City : Eindhoven, Netherlands

Photographer : Bart Van Overbeeke  ©

The first 3D printing in Construction in the Netherlands was given to its residents on April 30, 2021. The Eindhoven home, the first of five built as part of the “Milestone Project,” complies in full with all applicable building regulations.

The one-story structure has 94 square meters of floor space, which includes a living room and two bedrooms. Its shape is modeled after a sizable boulder, which blends in well with the surrounding environment and exemplifies the design flexibility provided by 3D concrete printing. The house is incredibly cozy and energy-efficient, with an energy performance coefficient of 0.25, thanks to extra-thick insulation and a connection to the heating network.

The home’s design, which was inspired by the shape of a rock, was created by Dutch architects Houben & Van Mierlo.

It was built by printing layers of stacked concrete to create 24 distinct components, and it has outside walls that are curved and slanted.

These components were produced at a nearby printing facility and sent to the construction site where they were put together, secured to a foundation, and outfitted with a roof, windows, and doors.

According to Weber Benelux CEO Bas Huysmans, “We’ve taken important steps in this project toward the further development of 3D concrete printing in construction” with the printing of insulated and self-supporting wall parts that are curved in three dimensions.

The goal of Project Milestone, a partnership between the Eindhoven University of Technology and a number of building experts, is to learn from it in order to advance the manufacture of 3D-printed dwellings, And also reduce the cost of building houses by using 3D printing in Construction.

5. Urban Cabin

Architects : DUS Architects 

City : Amsterdam, Netherlands

Project Year : 2016

Photographers : Ossip van Duivenbode ©, Sophia van den Hoek ©, DUS Architects ©

In Amsterdam, the Dutch architectural firm DUS Architects 3D printed an eight-square-meter cabin with a bathroom and is now inviting guests to spend the night.

A former industrial area in Amsterdam is transformed by the 3D printed Urban Cabin into a cozy urban hideaway complete with a pocket park and outdoor bathtub. The structure is a study of small, environmentally friendly housing options for urban settings. It can be completely recycled and 3D printed again in the upcoming years because it is totally made of bio-plastic.

The architecture plays with the relationships between interior and outdoor areas to create luxury with a minimum footprint. It is entirely 3D printed from bio-based material in a dark tint, showcasing various façade ornaments, form-optimization methods, and resource-efficient insulating techniques.

The Urban Cabin is a component of DUS Architects’ 3D Print Living Lab. Another step has been taken toward creating sustainable, adaptable, and on-demand housing options for the world’s rapidly expanding cities utilizing internal 3D printing technology.

Overall, the house is 8 square meters by 25 square meters. Inside, there is a mini-porch and a room with a sofa that can be used as a twin bed. the urban cabin is open for short stays and comfortably houses a place of refuge along the canal.

The idea also represents a step forward in the development of tiny, temporary homes for constrained sites and disaster-prone areas. The material can be destroyed after use and then reprinted with a different pattern.

6. House 1.0

Architects : SAGA Space Architects

City : Holstebro, Denmark

The first 3D-printed concrete tiny house in Europe, House 1.0, was been unveiled by the Danish 3D printing business 3DCP Group.

The concrete apartment, which is situated in Holstebro, Denmark, was constructed in association with Saga Space Architects and the modular 3D construction printer business COBOD.

By fitting all necessary utilities into just 37 square meters, the building is intended to be as inexpensive as possible. The aim of the overall endeavor is to build better, faster, greener, and to reduce the amount of strenuous work in the construction process.

The house was created as a joint venture between the Danish firms 3DCP and Saga Space Architects. It is made up of triangular sections organized in a circular pattern and joined by an open-center core. There is a bathroom, an open kitchen, a living area, and a bedroom in the compact home. The bedroom was placed on a mezzanine level above the bathroom to conserve space. The roof has been raised in order to do this.

Using a large-format construction 3D printer from COBOD, the entire structure – including its roofs and foundations – is made of solid concrete at a reasonable cost. As a nod to Nordic construction customs, its interior is distinguished by warm wood.

3D printing in Construction is the next major advancement in the building sector, claims 3DCP. You may already be familiar with the conventional plastic 3D printers that you may use in your hobby room at home. The idea is the same; however, our printer is enormously larger.

explains the Danish corporation. “We use the printer to lay the concrete, layer by layer, minimizing waste and the overall material consumption while allowing a fusion of many processes and workflows, all of which contribute to the construction moving along quickly and efficiently.”

The Future of 3D Printing in Construction and Its Impact

The future of 3D printing in Construction holds great potential and is expected to have a significant impact on the industry. 3D printing in Construction, also known as additive manufacturing, involves the creation of three-dimensional objects by depositing material layer by layer. When applied to construction, this technology has the ability to revolutionize the way buildings and structures are designed and built. Key aspects of the future of 3D printing in Construction and its impact include faster and cost-effective construction, design freedom and customization, sustainability and reduced environmental impact, and eco-friendly and recyclable materials. 3D printing in Construction has the potential to improve structural performance, reduce transportation and carbon emissions, and integrate functional elements into the printed components.

It can be utilized both on-site and off-site in construction projects and can be particularly beneficial for construction projects in challenging environments. However, there are still challenges to overcome before 3D printing in Construction becomes mainstream in the construction industry, such as regulatory hurdles, scalability of the technology, material development, and the need for standardized processes. However, with ongoing research and development, it is expected that the future of 3D printing in Construction will continue to evolve and have a transformative impact on the industry.

Advantages of 3D Printing in Construction

3D printing in construction presents a myriad of advantages that are transforming traditional building methodologies. This revolutionary technology offers several key benefits, contributing to increased efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability in the construction industry.

One primary advantage is the unparalleled design flexibility afforded by 3D printing. This technology enables architects and engineers to create complex and intricate structures that were previously challenging or impossible with conventional construction methods. The layer-by-layer additive manufacturing process allows for the realization of unique geometries, resulting in innovative and aesthetically pleasing designs.

Moreover, 3D printing significantly reduces construction time. By eliminating the need for time-consuming formwork and enabling rapid layering of materials, projects that once took months can now be completed in a fraction of the time. This accelerated construction pace not only enhances project timelines but also minimizes labor costs, contributing to overall cost-effectiveness.

Cost efficiency extends beyond labor savings. 3D printing in construction often utilizes local and sustainable materials, reducing transportation costs and minimizing the environmental impact associated with conventional construction practices. Additionally, the precise nature of 3D printing minimizes material waste, optimizing resource utilization and further enhancing economic and environmental sustainability.

Another notable advantage is the potential for enhanced structural integrity. The layering process allows for meticulous control over material distribution, resulting in structures with increased strength and durability. This can lead to the creation of resilient buildings that withstand environmental challenges more effectively, contributing to the longevity of constructed assets.

The customization capabilities of 3D printing are also advantageous, particularly in the realm of affordable housing. Companies like ICON have demonstrated the ability to 3D print homes tailored to specific design requirements and local needs, addressing housing challenges with cost-effective solutions.

In summary, the advantages of 3D printing in construction encompass design flexibility, accelerated construction timelines, cost-effectiveness, sustainability, enhanced structural integrity, and customized solutions. As the technology continues to advance, these advantages position 3D printing as a transformative force in the construction industry, offering new possibilities for innovation and efficiency.

Source: Archdaily

Limitations , Challenges , and How to Solve it

While 3D printing in construction holds immense promise, it also faces several limitations and challenges that need to be addressed for widespread adoption and success in the industry.

• Current construction-grade 3D printers often have size limitations, hindering their applicability to large-scale projects like commercial buildings or infrastructure developments.
• Ongoing research aims to develop larger and more sophisticated 3D printing systems capable of handling substantial structures.
• Limited availability of construction-grade materials suitable for 3D printing remains a challenge.
• The industry needs to explore a broader range of materials that offer both structural integrity and durability.
• Stringent building codes and regulations were not initially designed with 3D printing in mind, leading to uncertainties and delays in obtaining approvals.
• Proactive engagement with regulatory bodies is essential to establish standardized guidelines and ensure compliance.
• The absence of standardized processes and best practices hampers the seamless integration of 3D printing in construction.
• Industry-wide collaboration is necessary to develop standardized procedures and guidelines for various 3D printing technologies.

Addressing the Challenges:

• Researchers, engineers, architects, and policymakers must collaborate to address scale limitations and develop scalable 3D printing systems.
• Joint efforts can explore new materials, ensuring they meet safety standards and are suitable for construction applications.
• Proactive engagement with regulatory bodies is crucial to establish clear guidelines and standards for 3D printing in construction.
• This collaboration can facilitate the creation of a regulatory framework that aligns with the unique aspects of 3D printing technology.
• Collaborative efforts between material scientists and construction engineers can lead to the development of a broader range of construction-grade materials for 3D printing.
• Research initiatives should focus on materials that not only meet structural requirements but also adhere to industry safety standards.
• Industry stakeholders, including researchers and practitioners, should work together to establish standards and best practices for 3D printing in construction.
• Standardization efforts will enhance interoperability, streamline processes, and contribute to the broader adoption of 3D printing technology.

As these initiatives progress, the limitations and challenges associated with 3D printing in construction will be gradually addressed, fostering a more robust and widely accepted framework for this transformative technology.

Environmental Impact

The environmental impact of 3D printing in construction is a critical aspect to consider as the industry explores innovative technologies. While 3D printing offers notable sustainability advantages, it also poses environmental challenges that require careful consideration.

Advantages:

• Traditional construction often results in significant material waste due to the need for precise measurements and cutting. 3D printing, being an additive manufacturing process, minimizes waste by only using the material necessary for the structure.
• 3D printing allows for on-site construction, reducing the need for transporting heavy construction materials over long distances. This localized production helps lower carbon emissions associated with transportation.
• The layer-by-layer construction process of 3D printing enables precise control over material distribution, optimizing resource usage. This efficiency contributes to sustainability by reducing the overall environmental footprint.
• Some 3D printing technologies are inherently energy-efficient compared to traditional construction methods. For instance, using robotic arms or gantry systems in 3D printing can require less energy than heavy machinery used in conventional construction.

Challenges:

• The environmental impact depends on the materials used for 3D printing. While there is a push towards sustainable and eco-friendly materials, some printing materials may still have environmental consequences. Ongoing research aims to develop more environmentally friendly alternatives.
• The energy consumption of 3D printers, especially large-scale construction printers, can be a concern. Optimizing the energy efficiency of these systems and exploring renewable energy sources for powering printers are areas of ongoing research.
• Understanding the end-of-life considerations for 3D-printed structures is crucial. The disposal and recycling of 3D-printed materials, especially those reinforced with fibers or other additives, need careful attention to prevent environmental harm.
• Ensuring that 3D-printed structures comply with environmental regulations is an evolving challenge. Regulatory frameworks may need to be adapted to address the unique aspects of 3D printing in construction and its environmental implications.

In conclusion, while 3D printing in construction presents significant opportunities to reduce environmental impact through reduced waste, localized production, and optimized material usage, addressing challenges related to material considerations, energy consumption, end-of-life considerations, and regulatory compliance is crucial for fostering a truly sustainable and eco-friendly construction ecosystem. Ongoing research and collaboration across disciplines are essential to maximizing the positive environmental impact of 3D printing in construction.

Source: Sculpteo

Training and Skill Development

The integration of 3D printing in construction demands a workforce equipped with specialized skills and knowledge to navigate this transformative technology. Training and skill development initiatives play a pivotal role in ensuring that professionals in the construction industry can harness the full potential of 3D printing.

Training Programs: Formal training programs are essential to introduce construction professionals, including architects, engineers, and construction workers, to the principles and practices of 3D printing. These programs should cover the fundamentals of 3D printing technology, including the operation of 3D printers, understanding construction-grade materials, and the intricacies of designing structures suitable for additive manufacturing.

Educational Partnerships: Collaborations between educational institutions and industry players are crucial for developing curricula that align with the evolving needs of the construction sector. Integrating 3D printing modules into existing construction and engineering programs helps students gain hands-on experience with this cutting-edge technology, preparing them for the demands of future construction projects.

Certification Programs: Establishing industry-recognized certification programs ensures that professionals can validate their expertise in 3D printing for construction. These certifications can cover various aspects, from operating specialized 3D printers to implementing 3D printing technologies in construction projects. Certification not only enhances individual skill sets but also provides a standardized benchmark for employers seeking qualified professionals.

Continuous Professional Development: Given the rapid evolution of 3D printing technology, continuous professional development is essential. Workshops, seminars, and online courses can help construction professionals stay abreast of the latest advancements, emerging materials, and best practices in the field. Industry associations and organizations can play a crucial role in organizing such events.

Hands-On Training: Hands-on training is indispensable for developing practical skills. Training centers equipped with 3D printers and construction-grade materials provide a simulated environment for professionals to familiarize themselves with the equipment, troubleshoot common issues, and refine their printing techniques.

Apprenticeships and On-Site Learning: On-site apprenticeships allow construction professionals to gain practical experience under the guidance of experienced practitioners. This experiential learning approach ensures that individuals can apply their theoretical knowledge to real-world scenarios, addressing the specific challenges associated with 3D printing in construction.

In conclusion, a robust framework for training and skill development is essential for unlocking the potential of 3D printing in construction. By investing in educational initiatives, certification programs, and continuous learning opportunities, the construction industry can cultivate a skilled workforce capable of driving innovation and successfully implementing 3D printing technologies in construction projects.

Economic Implications

The adoption of 3D printing in construction carries significant economic implications, influencing various aspects of the construction industry and the broader economy. These implications encompass cost savings, job markets, construction costs, and economic growth.

• Cost Savings:
• 3D printing has the potential to substantially reduce construction costs. The efficiency of the additive manufacturing process minimizes material waste, and the reduced need for traditional construction methods, such as formwork, can lead to lower labor costs. Additionally, the ability to use local materials may further contribute to cost savings.
• Job Markets and Skill Demand:
• The introduction of 3D printing in construction creates a demand for professionals with specialized skills in operating and maintaining 3D printers, designing structures compatible with additive manufacturing, and overseeing 3D-printed construction projects. While traditional construction jobs may see some transformation, the overall impact on job markets is likely to be positive as new skill sets are in demand.
• Construction Costs and Affordability:
• The efficiency and cost-effectiveness of 3D printing can contribute to more affordable housing solutions. Companies like ICON and New Story have explored 3D printing for constructing affordable homes, addressing housing challenges and making homeownership more accessible to a broader segment of the population.
• Economic Growth and Innovation:
• The integration of 3D printing in construction fosters innovation, driving economic growth. Investments in research and development, technological advancements, and the creation of new businesses centered around 3D printing contribute to a dynamic and forward-looking construction industry.
• Market Competition:
• The adoption of 3D printing technologies introduces a new dimension of competition within the construction industry. Companies that embrace and invest in 3D printing may gain a competitive edge in terms of efficiency, project timelines, and cost-effectiveness, influencing market dynamics and business strategies.
• Infrastructure Development:
• The economic implications extend to infrastructure development, where 3D printing can streamline and expedite construction projects. This efficiency in infrastructure development, such as bridges and viaducts, contributes to economic progress by reducing project timelines and associated costs.

While the economic implications of 3D printing in construction hold great promise, careful considerations are essential to address challenges related to regulatory frameworks, material costs, and initial investments in technology. As the technology matures and becomes more widely adopted, its positive economic impact is expected to grow, influencing construction practices and economic outcomes globally.

Interactive Tools and Simulations

The integration of interactive tools and simulations in 3D printing for construction represents a significant advancement, offering enhanced visualization, planning, and decision-making capabilities. These tools leverage virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) to transform the construction process, providing a range of benefits.

• Enhanced Visualization:
• Interactive tools and simulations enable stakeholders, including architects, engineers, and clients, to visualize construction projects in a highly immersive manner. Virtual models created through these tools offer a detailed and realistic representation of the final structure, aiding in better decision-making during the design and planning stages.
• Design Iterations and Collaboration:
• Virtual simulations allow for rapid design iterations and collaborative decision-making. Stakeholders can explore different design options, identify potential challenges, and make informed decisions in a virtual environment before the actual construction begins. This iterative process enhances collaboration and reduces the likelihood of costly modifications later in the construction phase.
• Project Planning and Coordination:
• Interactive tools assist in project planning and coordination by providing a detailed overview of the construction site and project components. This helps in optimizing construction workflows, scheduling tasks efficiently, and minimizing conflicts. Stakeholders can identify potential issues early on, leading to smoother project execution.
• Worker Training and Safety:
• VR and AR simulations serve as valuable tools for training construction workers in a safe and controlled environment. Workers can familiarize themselves with the operation of 3D printers, construction processes, and safety protocols. This immersive training contributes to improved on-site performance and enhanced safety.
• On-Site Construction Assistance:
• Augmented reality can be utilized on construction sites to provide real-time assistance to workers. AR overlays digital information onto the physical construction site, offering guidance on precise placement of components and ensuring accuracy during the 3D printing process.
• Client Engagement:
• Interactive simulations enhance client engagement by allowing them to experience the project in a virtual space. Clients can explore the design, understand project details, and provide valuable feedback before construction commences. This improves communication and ensures that the final product aligns with client expectations.
• Quality Control and Monitoring:
• These tools facilitate real-time monitoring and quality control during the construction process. Stakeholders can track progress, identify deviations from the design, and implement corrective measures promptly. This contributes to the overall efficiency and quality of the construction project.

In conclusion, the integration of interactive tools and simulations in 3D printing for construction transforms traditional practices by offering a dynamic and immersive approach to project visualization, collaboration, training, and safety. As technology continues to evolve, these tools are expected to play a pivotal role in optimizing construction processes and furthering the adoption of 3D printing in the industry.

The landscape of construction is undergoing a profound transformation with the integration of 3D printing. The advantages of this technology, including design flexibility, accelerated construction timelines, cost-effectiveness, sustainability, enhanced structural integrity, and customized solutions, position 3D printing as a revolutionary force in the industry. The ability to create complex structures with unprecedented efficiency and reduced environmental impact signifies a paradigm shift in construction methodologies.

The environmental impact of 3D printing in construction presents a dual narrative, with advantages such as reduced waste and optimized material usage juxtaposed against challenges related to material considerations, energy consumption, end-of-life considerations, and regulatory compliance. Ongoing research and collaboration are necessary to refine materials, improve energy efficiency, and establish clear guidelines for environmentally responsible 3D printing practices.

The integration of interactive tools and simulations adds another layer of sophistication to 3D printing in construction, offering enhanced visualization, collaborative design iterations, improved project planning and coordination, advanced worker training and safety, on-site construction assistance, increased client engagement, and real-time quality control and monitoring. As these tools continue to evolve, they are expected to play a pivotal role in optimizing construction processes and accelerating the adoption of 3D printing technology.

Looking forward, the future of 3D printing in construction holds tremendous potential. Continued innovation, research, and collaborative efforts will pave the way for overcoming current limitations and challenges. The economic, environmental, and transformative benefits of 3D printing suggest a trajectory where this technology becomes an integral part of the construction industry, reshaping how we conceive, design, and build structures for a more sustainable and efficient future.

Design Buildings | Autodesk

For the projects:

Tecla House: dezeen | archdaily | designboom

Zero House: dezeen | designboom

Two Story House: dezeen | archdaily | designboom

House 1.0: designboom

Milestone Project: dezeen | designboom

For the main picture: freepik

Hadi PourMohammadi

Content creator of Neuroject

Related Posts

April 19, 2024

Top 7 Ways of Optimizing Building Performance; 2024 Solution

Discover the Top Strategies and Innovations Driving the Optimizing Building…

April 18, 2024

Decarbonizing Construction; A Sustainable Future Ahead (2024 Solution)

Explore the Challenges and Opportunities in Decarbonizing Construction…

April 17, 2024

What is Financial Management in Construction; Comprehensive Guide 2024

Discover Essential Insights into Financial Management in Construction Projects.…

Privacy Preference Center

Privacy preferences.

• Open access
• Published: 02 May 2019

Assessment of body-powered 3D printed partial finger prostheses: a case study

• Keaton J. Young   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5597-7316 1 ,
• James E. Pierce 1 &
• Jorge M. Zuniga 1 , 2  

3D Printing in Medicine volume  5 , Article number:  7 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

16k Accesses

19 Citations

Metrics details

Traditional prosthetic fabrication relies heavily on plaster casting and 3D models for the accurate production of prosthetics to allow patients to begin rehabilitation and participate in daily activities. Recent technological advancements allow for the use of 2D photographs to fabricate individualized prosthetics based on patient anthropometrics. Additive manufacturing (i.e. 3D printing) enhances the capability of prosthesis manufacturing by significantly increasing production speed and decreasing production cost. Existing literature has extensively described the validity of using computer-aided design and 3D printing for fabrication of upper limb prostheses. The present investigation provides a detailed description of the development of a patient specific body-powered 3D printed partial finger prosthesis and compares its qualitative and functional characteristics to a commercially available finger prosthesis.

Case presentation

A 72-year old white male with a partial finger amputation at the proximal interphalangeal joint of the left hand performed a simple gross motor task with two partial finger prostheses and completed two self-reported surveys (QUEST & OPUS). Remote fitting of the 3D printed partial finger began after receipt of 2D photographs of the patient’s affected and non-affected limbs. Prosthetic fitting when using 3D printable materials permitted the use of thermoforming around the patient’s residual limb, allowing for a comfortable but tight-fitting socket. Results of the investigation show i mproved performance in the Box and Block Test when using both prostheses (22 blocks per minute) as compared to when not using a prosthesis (18 blocks per minute). Both body-powered prostheses demonstrated slightly lower task-efficiency when compared to the non-affected limb (30 blocks per minute) for the gross motor task. Results of the QUEST and OPUS describe specific aspects of both prostheses that are highly relevant to quality of life and functional performance when using partial finger prostheses.

The use of 3D printing exhibits great potential for the fabrication of functional partial finger prostheses that improve function in amputees. In addition, 3D printing provides an alternative means for patients located in underdeveloped or low-income areas to procure a functional finger prosthesis.

Limb loss due to amputation is expected to reach nearly 3.6 million by the year 2050, which will have dramatically increased from the current 1.6 million in 2005 [ 1 ]. The majority of these amputations are considered minor amputations, as these individuals are losing only small appendages such as fingers or toes [ 2 ]. Amputation of the fingers in the upper limbs is a common occurrence and has significant implications on individuals overall function, coordination and quality of life. Loss of these appendages can reduce functional ability, resulting in difficulties performing activities of daily living (ADL) [ 3 ]. The use of prostheses has been shown to improve completion of ADLs, in addition to improving psychosocial self-esteem, body image, interlimb coordination with the contralateral limb and body symmetry [ 4 , 5 ]. Despite this, prior literature found that nearly 70% of upper limb prosthetic users were unsatisfied with their prosthesis when completing ADLs [ 6 ]. In addition, it has been indicated that nearly 52% of upper limb amputees abandon their prosthetic devices due to the functional, aesthetic or other limitations [ 7 ]. In contrast to the reported figures of device abandonment, realistic rejection rates and non-usage have been estimated to be even greater due to the lack of communication between clinics and prosthetic non-users [ 8 ]. To reduce the large degree of device abandonment, it is recommended that prosthetic device fitting occur immediately or as quickly as possible following a surgical amputation, which may increase the acceptance rate of these devices [ 9 ]. Traditional prosthesis fabrication is a lengthy process that requires a certified prosthetist to make multiple castings of the affected limb using plaster, which can be both labor and material intensive. As traditional fabrication methods may not meet the rate at which prostheses must be manufactured, the need for an accelerated method of production presents itself. Modern advances in additive manufacturing (i.e., 3D Printing) have made it possible for the batch-production of low cost, customized upper-limb 3D prostheses using Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), where the production capacity is limited to the size, type, and the total number of 3D printers available [ 10 ].

To reduce the time and inaccuracy of socket fabrication, 3D scanning has been previously utilized to scan the affected limb to allow for rapid prototyping of medical prostheses by producing accurate stereolithographic (STL) models, which are imported into computer-aided design (CAD) systems [ 11 ]. Socket fabrication using CAD methods have been shown to be reliable when coupled with digital files (i.e. STL’s) and additive manufacturing (i.e. FDM) reducing the amount of time needed to fabricate prosthetic sockets [ 12 ]. Furthermore, CAD systems have been shown to be a viable alternative for fabrication of functional 3D printable transitional prostheses with highly customized sockets relative to patient-specific anthropometrics [ 13 ]. Transitional prostheses are referred to as “temporary prosthesis” or “immediate postoperative prosthesis”, and have been previously investigated for retention and restoration of muscular strength and range of motion [ 14 ]. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is twofold: (i) to describe the development of a transitional 3D printed prosthesis for partial finger amputees and (ii) to discuss the qualitative and functional characteristics when compared to a commercially available partial finger prosthesis. This information is essential in creating a compelling argument for the efficacy of using 3D printed prostheses as transitional prosthetics for amputees with partial finger loss. We hypothesize that the locally fabricated 3D printed prosthesis will produce similar qualitative and functional results when compared to the commercially available partial finger prosthesis. Our hypothesis is based on previous investigations that have shown the use of 3D printing for the development of functional prostheses [ 13 ].

Research subject

The subject evaluated in this study was a 72-year-old male (height 177.8 cm; weight 81.6 kg) with an acquired traumatic amputation of the index finger at the proximal interphalangeal joint (PIP) on the left hand (non-dominant) distal to the metacarpal joint (MCP) (Fig.  1 ). The residual limb of the affected hand was 4.5 cm in length (MCP to PIP) and 7 cm in circumference. The non-affected finger on the right hand (dominant) was 9.5 cm in length and 7 cm in circumference. Prior to the laboratory visit, this participant provided pictures of both the affected and non-affected hands for the remote fitting of the 3D printed finger prosthesis [ 10 ]. The subject had acquired the MCP-Driver™ finger prosthesis (NAKED Prosthetics Inc., Olympia, WA USA) and reported that they regularly used the device prior to participating in this study. The local Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Research subject with amputation at the proximal interphalangeal joint of the left hand

Local 3D printed finger prosthesis

The locally 3D printed finger prosthesis (LPF) was created by the authors for the purpose of testing a prototype of a body-powered partial finger prosthesis. The featured design utilizes a tension-driven voluntary-closing (VC) mechanism, which requires activation of the residual limb’s musculature at the MCP to produce flexion for coordinated manipulation of objects. The prosthesis was designed utilizing the participant’s non-affected finger length, width and circumference to create an approximately sized prosthetic limb to match the non-affected limb. The LPF allows for pinch grasping actions actuated by flexion of the MCP. An MCP flexion angle of 40° produced 1 in. of cable travel for full operation. Drafting and design of this device utilized multiple different methods ranging from parametric design to model sculpting when using a computer-aided design program (CAD) (Autodesk Fusion 360, Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, CA USA). Overall design of the LFP incorporates three segmented sections with simple pivot joints in-between each segment to provide smooth and coupled movement. These sections include the proximal, middle and distal segments. Joints between the middle and proximal segment allow for movement, however, the joint between the distal and middle segments is frozen with the distal segment of the finger flexed at a 30° angle downward to allow for smoother actuation of the finger when tension is applied by the user. A rear flat portion is sized to the circumference of the subject’s finger and then thermoformed around the finger during fitting and acts as a retention ring to provide additional stability to the finger. The device was secured using a customized soft neoprene cast fitted to the palm of the hand, which was used to create an anchoring point for actuation of the device to occur and to reduce the amount of friction that the user may experience from the nylon string utilized to produced rotational force around the LFP’s interphalangeal pivot joints. A silicone grip is added onto the fingertip to increase grasp compliance and to prevent slippage of gripped objects. Initial sizing of the prosthesis was performed remotely and began by instructing the patient to photograph both the affected and unaffected limbs including a known measurable scale, such as metric grid paper. This photogrammetric method allowed the extraction of several anthropometric measurements from the photographs, including limb length, width and circumference derived from the limb area. This photograph was then uploaded to a CAD software, which was calibrated by the known unit of measure of the graph paper (i.e. 1 cm boxes) included in the photograph (Fig.  2 ). Patient anthropometric measures including limb length, width and circumference were utilized to create a socket that was then incorporated into the full design. Once all measure had been validated by a certified prosthetist, STL model files were uploaded to a 3D slicer software (Simplify3D v4.1, Simplify3D, Blue Ashe, OH) to add any material support that would be needed during the printing process. Sliced 3D files were then transferred to a desktop 3D Printer (Ultimaker 2 extended, Ultimaker B.V., Geldermalsen, The Netherlands). The material used in printing the finger prostheses was polylactic acid (PLA). The prosthesis was printed at 35% infill using a rectangular infill pattern, 60 mm/s print speed, 150 mm/s travel speed, 210 °C nozzle temperature, 50 °C heated build plate, 0.15 mm layer height, and 0.8 mm shell thickness. The design of the LFP allows for all motion components to be printed in place and pre-assembled. Additional components of the finger prosthesis include Nylon string (1 mm diameter) and elastic cord (1.5 mm diameter), which produce the flexion and extension capabilities observed in the functionality of the device. Additional components include medical-grade padded foam as a soft socket and anchoring point and a protective skin sock for the residual limb to reduce friction of the prosthesis on the skin.

a Rendered CAD model of LFP. b Hand symmetry between the non-affected hand and affected hand with 3D printed finger prosthesis. c Participant performing the Box and Block Test. d Participant typing on an electronic keyboard

The LFP was manufactured using PLACTIVE™ (PLACTIVE™ 1% Antibacterial Nanoparticles additive, Copper3D, Santiago, Chile), which is formulated with an internationally patented additive containing copper nanoparticles. Copper nanoparticles have been shown to be effective in eliminating fungi, viruses, and bacteria, but are harmless to humans [ 15 ]. PLACTIVE™ was chosen as it uses a sound and proven antibacterial mechanism, is a low-cost material that is biodegradable, and possesses thermoforming characteristics that facilitate post-processing and final adjustments of the LFP. PLACTIVE™ has similar physical (relative viscosity = 4.0 g/dL, clarity = transparent, peak melt temperature = 145–160 °C, glass transition temperature = 55–60 °C) and mechanical (tensile yield strength = 8700 psi, tensile strength at break = 7700 psi, tensile modulus = 524,000 psi, tensile elongation = 6%, flexural strength = 12,000 psi, and heat distortion temperature at 66 psi = 55 °C) properties to standard PLA. The average printing time for the LFP was 60 ± 5.6 min. Post-processing consisted of support removal and filing of rough areas in the joints and prosthetic socket area in contact with the skin. The build orientation on the build platform and generation of the support are illustrated in Fig.  3 . Support was generated for all overhang angles of 45° or higher required support material. The post-processing of the LFP took 10 min, and assembly took 30 min. The total material cost of the LFP was estimated to be $20, due to the multiple prototypes made throughout the development process.

Build orientation and support generation of the 3D printed finger prosthesis

Commercial finger prosthesis

The commercial prosthesis investigated in this study is the MCP-Driver ™ (MFP) and is manufactured by NAKED Prosthetics Incorporated. This partial finger prosthesis is body-powered and utilizes a linkage-driven mechanism of action for the articulation of a partial finger amputation. Overall device design specifically accommodates patients that have acquired a proximal phalanx amputation and aims to restore articulation at the middle and distal phalanges. The MFP allows for specific grasping orientations such as pinching, key, and cylindrical types and provides good grip stability. Capabilities of this device include modular force production, as the user is able to modify the amount of force that is directed onto the object that is being grasped allowing for more sensitive objects to be held (i.e., Egg). The MFP is fabricated using titanium, 316 stainless steel, silicone and medical grade nylon, enhancing durability and aesthetic appearance (Fig.  4 ). The estimated time to fabricate one of these devices is between 6 to 8 weeks, which allows for the collection of proper documentation, photos, and casts from prosthetic practitioners to be received. Multiple MFP devices can be used in the case of multiple amputations at the proximal phalanx, which are anchored to a carbon fiber cast around the palm of the affected hand. The ability to attach multiple prostheses to a centralized anchor-point allows for improved intralimb coordination, force production and overall function of the affected hand. The MFP has the ability for finger adduction and abduction due to articulation at the anchoring point of the cast and can be adjusted by the clinician providing care or the user. Additionally, by increasing the planes of motion that the prosthetic device can move within, the acclimation period to the prosthetic device can be significantly reduced. An adjustable carbon fiber ring is used as a minimal socket to allow for the suspension of the finger. The tensile strength of this ring is 80 lbs. In addition, this simplified socket design improves overall comfort and reduces infringement of the device on range of motion of the fingers [ 16 ]. The MFP is available in multiple different aesthetic coatings, which can be selected at the discretion of the user. The MFP is fabricated using a combination of metal 3D printing technology and externally applied components that allow for manual adjustment of the device for a more comfortable fit, which contrasts to the LFP that uses FDM printing and thermoplastics. The cost of this device is estimated to be $9000 to $19,000 per device and highly depends on the parts used for fabrication of the device. In order to obtain accurate information pertaining to this specific device, the authors privately communicated with the manufacturer for more detailed information of specific device discussed in this investigation.

NAKED Prosthetics Inc. MCP-Driver Finger Prosthesis

The research subject visited the research laboratory twice, during the first visit an orientation session took place where the testing procedures were fully explained, informed consent was completed and the initial device distributed for use. During the second visit, the subject was given a version of the initial device that was modified for improved comfort, and testing procedures were completed. The Box and Block Test (BBT) was completed, which acts as a functional outcome measure of unilateral gross manual dexterity. The BBT has been used in previous prosthetic assessment studies and has been seen to measure prosthetic limb performance and motor learning [ 17 , 18 ]. The Box and Block test required the subject to move 1-in. blocks one at a time from one box, over a partition, and to drop the blocks in the adjacent box (Fig.  5 ). The subject was seated comfortably, and then completed a one-minute trial of the BBT with his affected hand, unaffected hand, and affected hand with the 3D printed prosthesis and MFP The subject was asked to place their hands on the sides of the box. As testing started, the subject was asked to grasp one block at a time, transport the block over the partition, and release it into the opposite compartment.

Box and Block Test (BBT) and structural dimensions (cm)

Two weeks after laboratory testing concluded, the subject was sent a satisfaction survey that utilized two separate prosthetic specific surveys. Prosthesis use and satisfaction were assessed using the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) [ 19 ]. The QUEST 2.0 consists of 12 items with optional satisfaction items that a participant may feel are essential to a particular aspect of their device or service. All responses were graded on a five-point satisfaction scale ranging from one (“not satisfied at all”) to five (“very satisfied”). The QUEST 2.0 utilizes three separate categorization scores including: Device, Service, and average total score of all 12 items based on the range of 1 to 5. The “service” portion did not pertain to this study and therefore the “device” portion of the QUEST was the only one assessed, which encompassed only 8 items. In addition, the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users Survey (OPUS) was used to evaluate the subjects upper extremity functional status and quality of life [ 20 ]. The OPUS consists of five subscales; of these, the upper extremity functional status (UEFS) and OPUS-Satisfaction with Devices (CSD) were used, which both use a qualitative rating scale of “Strongly Agree” to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”. The upper extremity functional status survey consists of 28 questions pertaining to the completion of physical tasks (i.e., Use key in lock, Put on socks). The OPUS – CSD consists of 21 questions that observe the opinion of the user concerning the overall device function and services provided for the device (Table 1 ). The first 11 questions of the OPUS – CSD were utilized in this study, as the other items lacked in relevance.

In the performance of the gross manual dexterity task, the subject moved 18 blocks per minute (BPM) when no prosthesis was utilized. When a prosthesis was used, performance improved to 22 BPM during the one-minute trial with both the LFP and the MFP. Comparatively, the non-affected limb moved 30 BPM, which demonstrates the relative functional difference of the affected limb.

Results of the QUEST 2.0 showed that the LFP scored slightly higher (3.3 ± 1.2), as compared to the MFP (2.5 ± 0.5) device satisfaction. Description of the results for the QUEST 2.0 survey for both the LFP and the MFP are observed (Table 2 ). Qualitative results for the OPUS – CSD are displayed in Table 1 . As only 3 of the 28 questions were completed for the OPUS – UEFS, only completed questions for both prostheses are discussed. The OPUS – UEFS indicated that the participant was able to complete the tasks: “Carry a laundry basket” and “Put on and take off prosthesis” very easily with both prostheses and “Open a bag of chips with both hands” easily with the LFP and very easily with the MFP.

The primary findings of the current investigation provided evidence that the LFP produced very similar functional results to that of the MFP (Table 3 ). The results from the current investigation provides evidence demonstrating that both a tension- and linkage- driven body-powered prostheses can produce similar performance outcomes in the BBT. The subject demonstrated a lower functional outcome in the BBT when not using a prosthesis on the affected hand, with 60% task-specific efficiency when compared to the non-affected hand. The use of prostheses improved the task-specific efficiency to 73% of the non-affected hand, suggesting that the use of either the LFP or MFP will improve gross dexterity.

The current investigation examined the subject’s experienced satisfaction when using both of the prostheses. From the QUEST 2.0 device satisfaction survey, it was observed that the LFP received a slightly higher satisfaction rating, with the most critical satisfaction items being Comfort, Effectiveness, and Adjustments for the LFP, and Comfort, Effectiveness and Weight for the MFP. To supplement the QUEST 2.0 results, the OPUS – CSD provides a qualitative description of the subject’s feelings toward specific aspects of the prosthesis used. The questions used in the OPUS – CSD are similar to those of the QUEST, thus helping to provide more insight into the overall satisfaction with these devices. It can be observed from the OPUS – CSD that the MFP shows no faults in functional or aesthetic aspects, however, may not offer the same affordability or replacement capability as compared to the LFP. In addition, the LFP met the durability standard of the subject in the QUEST but did not meet the standard in the OPUS – CSD; this may indicate such confounding factors as varied survey times, which could lead to a difference in opinion between devices. Lastly, it can be seen that overall comfort was the same across both prostheses, which is important when considering the potentially abrasive surface finish of the additively manufactured parts.

From the OPUS – Upper Extremity Functional Status survey it was observed that only 3 of the 28 questions were answered fully, making qualitative comparisons between these prostheses difficult for the current participant. This substantial difference in response type (i.e. Not Applicable or Very Easy) may be due to the limited amount of time that the subject was given to use the LFP. The MFP was shown to have significantly more use due to the substantially higher number of question completion, as compared to the LFP. The vast majority of all tasks were observed to be relative “Easy” or “Very Easy”, with the exceptions of “Twisting a lid off a small bottle” and “peeling potatoes with a knife/peeler”. From the UEFS portion of the OPUS, it can be seen that the MFP is very functional and easy to use and can be used for a broad range of ADLs. In general, each prosthetic device provides different functional implications that individuals may find valuable throughout specific activities in daily life. As adequate qualitative measures could not be obtained for both devices in the current investigation, any implications derived from the qualitative results should be considered finite. Based on the information provided, neither prosthetic can be advocated for over the other; therefore, further information should be collected concerning device satisfaction.

Limitations of the present investigation are related to the number of trials performed during functional testing, a limited number of materials used in fabrication, use of only one testing protocol, and the amount of time the subject used one device compared to another. Specific limitations of the LFP relate to the limited functionality and fitting of the device, as it only provides the ability to flex and extend the artificial appendage, compared to the multiple planes of movement allowed by the commercially available MFP. In addition, the must be thermoformed to the individual’s affected limb, which requires experience fitting a prosthetic device and an understanding of thermoplastic element of the filament used in the fabrication process. Furthermore, a more comprehensive testing protocol should be used when evaluating the overall functionality of a prosthetic device to include benchmark factors such as friction coefficient, compliancy, and cycling tests to ensure the reliability of a specific device over time. As the survey results showed some valuable information, many of the questions were unable to be answered due to inadequate time with a specific prosthesis and therefore a longer period of use should be allowed prior to survey administration.

Future prototypes of 3D printed finger prostheses may encompass different mechanisms of action such as myoelectric, tension-, or linkage- driven mechanisms. Future studies should test a larger sample size using different prostheses, each with its own unique mechanism of action. While the primary findings of this case study indicate that a LFP can compare to the functional improvement seen in commercially fabricated prosthesis, the overall quality of life outcomes are not as definitive. It is clear that using a finger prosthesis for amputation at this specific amputation level are beneficial, however, further investigations must be performed to validate the efficacy of using these prostheses for amputations that are either more or less significant than the case displayed in this investigation.

The current investigation described two different types of body-powered finger prostheses and observed the functional and satisfaction outcomes of a single subject. An improvement in function is evident when either prostheses was used, with principal differences between the prostheses being the method of fabrication, design, and overall mechanisms of action. As the accessibility to 3D printing continues to enlarge, there is great potential for 3D printing to pave the way for multiple new medical applications and devices, which may transform the fabrication process of future medical devices.

Abbreviations

Activities of Daily Living

Box and Block Test

Blocks per Minute

Computer-Aided Design

Satisfaction with Devices

Fused Deposition Modeling

Local 3D Printed Finger Prosthesis

Metacarpal Joint

MCP-Driver ™

Orthotics and Prosthetics Users Survey

Proximal Interphalangeal Joint

Polylactic Acid

Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology

Stereolithographic

Upper Extremity Functional Status

Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, Travison TG, Brookmeyer R. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(3):422–9.

Article   Google Scholar  

Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE, MacKenzie EJ. Incidence, acute care length of stay, and discharge to rehabilitation of traumatic amputee patients: an epidemiologic study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(3):279–87.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kuret Z, Burger H, Vidmar G, Maver T. Adjustment to finger amputation and silicone finger prosthesis use. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;0(0):1–6.

Google Scholar  

Shirota C, et al. On the assessment of coordination between upper extremities: towards a common language between rehabilitation engineers, clinicians and neuroscientists. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13(1):1–14.

Bosmans J, Geertzen J, Dijkstra PU. Consumer satisfaction with the services of prosthetics and orthotics facilities. Prosthetics Orthot Int. 2009;33(1):69–77.

Jang CH, et al. A survey on activities of daily living and occupations of upper extremity amputees. Ann Rehabil Med. 2011;35(6):907.

Biddiss E, Chau T. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthetics Orthot Int. 2007;31(3):236–57.

E. Biddiss and T Chau, “Disability and Rehabilitation : Assistive Technology The roles of predisposing characteristics , established need , and enabling resources on upper extremity prosthesis use and abandonment,” vol 3107, 2009.

Routhier F, Vincent C, Morissette MJ, Desaulniers L. Clinical results of an investigation of paediatric upper limb myoelectric prosthesis fitting at the Quebec rehabilitation institute. Prosthetics Orthot Int. 2001;25(2):119–31.

Zuniga J, et al. Cyborg beast: a low-cost 3d-printed prosthetic hand for children with upper-limb differences. BMC Research Notes. 2015;8(1).

Ferreira JC, Alves NMF, Bartolo PJS. Rapid manufacturing of medical prostheses. Int J Manuf Technol Manag. 2004;6(6):567–83.

Tay FEH, Manna MA, Liu LX. A CASD/CASM method for prosthetic socket fabrication using the FDM technology. Rapid Prototyp J. 2002;8(4):258–62.

Zuniga JM, et al. Expert review of medical devices remote fitting procedures for upper limb 3d printed prostheses. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2019;0(0):1–10.

Zuniga JM, Peck J, Srivastava R, Katsavelis D, Carson A. An open source 3D-printed transitional hand prosthesis for children. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics. 2016;28(3):103–8.

Zuniga J. 3D printed antibacterial prostheses. Appl Sci. 2018;8(9):1651.

Naked Prosthetics, “A robust, custom, functional solution: MCPDriver,” no. 888, pp. 2–4, 2018.

Dromerick AW, Schabowsky CN, Holley RJ, Monroe B, Markotic A, Lum PS. Effect of training on upper-extremity prosthetic performance and motor learning: a single-case study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(6):1199–204.

Platz T, Pinkowski C, van Wijck F, Kim I-H, di Bella P, Johnson G. Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer test, action research arm test and box and block test: a multicentre study. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19(4):404–11.

Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Demers L, Ska B. Development of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Assist Technol. 1996;8(1):3–13.

Heinemann AW, Bode RK, O’Reilly C. Development and measurement properties of the orthotics and Prosthetics User’s survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instruments. Prosthetics Orthot Int. 2003;27(3):191–206.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our research participant for taking time to participate in this study. In addition, we would like to thank NAKED Prosthetics Inc. for providing technical information of their prosthetic device. Thank you to Copper3D for providing the 3D printing filament PLACTIVE™. Lastly, thank you to our occupational therapist and for fitting the device and all students involved in the 3D Prosthetics and Orthotics Lab for helping in this study.

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

All data analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biomechanics, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 6001 Dodge Street Omaha, Nebraska, NE, 68182, USA

Keaton J. Young, James E. Pierce & Jorge M. Zuniga

Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Jorge M. Zuniga

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors listed were actively involved in the conceptual design, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, as well as manuscript drafting and editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keaton J. Young .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The University of Nebraska Medical Center Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publications of this case report and accompanying images.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Young, K.J., Pierce, J.E. & Zuniga, J.M. Assessment of body-powered 3D printed partial finger prostheses: a case study. 3D Print Med 5 , 7 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-019-0044-0

Download citation

Received : 20 February 2019

Accepted : 17 April 2019

Published : 02 May 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-019-0044-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Finger amputation
• 3D printing
• 3D prosthetic development
• 3D printed prosthetic
• Additive manufacturing
• Fused deposition modeling

3D Printing in Medicine

ISSN: 2365-6271

• General enquiries: [email protected]

New classroom technologies: : Case study of 3D printers in Design course

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

• Feb 14, 2022

7 Stunning Use Cases For 3D Printing In Medical Field

3D printing, or additive manufacturing, is revolutionizing the medical industry over the past decade. Medical professionals are utilizing 3D printing technology to develop new medical tools, orthopedic implants, and prosthetics as well as the customized replicas of tissues, bones and organs.

3D printed hip implant with new generation of biomaterial that has excellent biocompatibility and promotes bone healing.

Table of Contents

Rising of 3D printing in medical field

Benefits of 3D printing for patient and doctors

Real-life applications of 3D printing in medical field

Let's get started with medical 3D printing

Rising of 3D Printing in Medical Field

According to the Global Market Insights, healthcare 3D printing market size was valued at over USD 1.7 billion in 2020 and is estimated to expand with a CAGR of more than 22.3% between 2021 and 2027.

North America dominates the market for healthcare 3D printing possessing 40% of the market’s shares, valued for over USD 701.4 million. Credit: Global Market Insights

The increasing support for quality control and safety measures from FDA is largely driving the industry development in North America. Additionally, a higher intensity of research and development activities is noted in North America by academic institutions as well as manufacturers.

Benefits of 3D Printing for Patients and Doctors

Personalized healthcare.

Shapeshift production process for customized wearables. Credit: 3D Natives

With recent technology and material advance, additive manufacturing allows for the design and print of more complex designs and material options than conventional manufacturing method. Healthcare professionals can now easily create customized medical tools and implants that are perfectly adapted to a patient’s anatomy, or a specific surgery.

The better fit of prosthetics and implants can drastically reduce the chance of infection, provide pain-free functions and speed up the recovery process.

Fast Design and Production

Traditional prosthetics and implants can take weeks to design and manufacture, especially if they are custom made for a patient.

With 3D printing techniques, healthcare professionals can design and print the object in-house on a professional 3D printer within a few days (and sometimes even less), which is much faster than molded or machine parts.

This could significantly reduce patients’ waiting time and lower the chances of complications that may occur as a result of delayed or unavailable medical devices.

Increase Cost Efficient

3D printing provides patients with affordable tailor-made prostheses and implants that are so expensive in traditional manufacturing processes. There is also no need to make any specialized tooling, jigs or fixtures, and there are no minimum volume requirements.

The entire process – from scanning, to 3D modeling and printing – can be performed simply by a single person and an inexpensive desktop 3D printer, saving time, labor, and money.

Real-life Applications of 3D printing in medical field

1. 3d anatomical models for surgical planning.

Tumor removal surgery performed with 3D planning at SJD Barcelona Children's Hospital. Credit: SJD Barcelona Children's Hospital

In 2013, SJD Barcelona Children's Hospital used 3D printing to plan the first-ever complex cancer surgery in a 5-year-old boy with great success. The boy was diagnosed with neuroblastoma, a rare childhood cancer develops in nerve tissues. To remove the tumor without endangering the patient’s life, surgeons had to skillfully avoid cutting the blood vessels and surrounding organs.

After two unsuccessful attempts, the team created a life-sized, 3D printed replica of the boy's tumor using materials with texture similar to the organs. Using the 3D model, surgeons carefully analyzed the anatomical relationships of tumor, vessels and organs and simulated the highly complex tumor excision. After rehearsing for more than a week, the surgeons successfully removed the tumor from the boy’s body. And the boy was expected to fully recover without additional surgeries.

Since then, 3D technology has been implemented by the hospital professionals in around 100 surgeries since 2017 to plan complex surgical procedures, create cutting guides and surgical tools, design patient specific prostheses and implants. Currently, 3D printing has been rolled out to other specialists in the Hospital including traumatology, maxillofacial surgery, cancer surgery, neurosurgery, cardiology, plastic surgery and dental surgery.

2. Prosthetic limb

Prosthetic socket is tailored to fit the leg of each patient using 3D technology. Credit: University of Toronto Scientific Instruments Collection

There are more than 57.7 million people living with limb loss worldwide. While prosthetic devices can help patients getting around more easily, they remain too expensive and uncomfortable. The problem has become even more obvious in children with limb loss – they outgrow prosthetics quickly and require frequent replacement. It costs an average of USD 80,000 per limb to keep a child outfitted with an appropriate prosthetic.

Using 3D printing technology, the University of Toronto introduced a low-cost, time-saving way to produce custom fit leg socket for children . The process is simple: a technician scan the residual limb, model a socket based on the 3D scanned data, and press "print". After 6 to 9 hours, a socket that is designed specifically for the patient will be ready.

3. Mass Production of Emergency Medical Supplies

3D printed finger splint designed by Ian McHale for temporary stabilization of a finger or joint after an injury. Credit: Thingiverse

Ian McHale, a senior at Steinert High School in United States, developed a design for producing finger splint on a low-end 3D printer in about 10 minutes for less than USD 2 cents of recycled plastic .

McHale understood the difficulties for developing countries in ordering large supplies from overseas, let alone custom splints. That’s why McHale decided to design 3D printed finger splints that were more affordable and readily available. Depending on the platform size, 30 – 40 splints could be printed in a single run. This splint design is also beneficial to clinics, remote hospitals and first-aid posts when supplies run low or special medical tools are required.

McHale’s design won the first prize in his division at the Mercer Science and Engineering Fair and was awarded by the United States Army and Air Force. He believed with a 3D printer, splints can be created on an individual basis and modified to fit various finger sizes. Currently, his design of the 3D printed finger splints is available for free downloading at Thingiverse and he invites people to design their personalized finger splints.

4. Bone Replacement

The KMU Hospital 3D printed an artificial collarbone (clavicle) using PEEK instead of traditional titanium alloy for bone replacement. Source: 3Dnatives

In 2018, the medical team at Kunming Medical University Hospital (KMU Hospital) in China, in collaboration with the 3D printer company IEMAI 3D, successfully transplanted the world's first 3D printed PEEK collarbone . This was performed on a 57-year-old man with advance cancer whose collarbone had to be cut off to remove cancer cells from affected tissues and organs.

To fix the collarbone after resection, doctors at KMU Hospital decided to use a PEEK prosthesis instead of using the traditional titanium mesh – as it won’t affect the patient's later treatment with chemotherapy. PEEK also guarantees faster recovery and demonstrates no side effects to patients.

The introduction of PEEK, ULTEM, PMMA and other thermoplastics to the medical field is opening the way for more patients to undergo implant surgery, as it would not affect their possible future treatments.

5. Skull Reconstruction

Tiffany Cullern underwent surgery to remove a brain tumor and had her skull constructed with a 3D printed skull implant after complications. Source: All3DP

Tiffany Cullern, a 20-year-old girl in Britain, had her skull reconstructed with a 3D printed skull plate .

The young girl suffered from a extremely rare brain tumor. The tumor was a size of a golf ball and kept growing. While surgeons were able to removed the tumor, Cullern was unresponsive with her brain swelled after the surgery. Surgeons could only undergo another operation to remove her skull in order to relive pressure. Since doctors were unsure whether Cullern’s brain would swell again, they leave her skull out until the condition was stable.

Leaving the head with a hand-sized hole for 3 months, Cullern was finally implanted with a 3D printed skull piece made of titanium, plastic, and calcium. She recently got engaged to her boyfriend and is thankful to have her head back to normal and is happy to move on in her life.

6. Human Corneas

Dr Steve Swioklo and Prof Che Connon successfully 3D printed the world’s first human cornea. Credit: Newcastle University

In 2018, the first human corneas was 3D printed by scientists at Newcastle University in United Kingdom.

The researchers worked by mixing healthy corneal stems cells with alginate and collagen to create a printable solution – “bio-ink”. Using a simple 3D bio-printer, the bio-ink was successfully extruded to form the shape of a human cornea in less than 10 minutes.

3D printed corneas were designed according to patient’s unique specifications. By scanning a patient’s eye, researchers could use the data to rapidly print a cornea which matched the size and shape.

Although the 3D printed corneas still require further testing before they are usable for transplant, the scientists at Newcastle University believed 3D printed corneas could relieve the global shortage of donor corneas in near future.

7. Heart Valves

A 3D printed artificial heart valve. Source: 3D Printing Indutry

Jonathan Butcher and his team at Cornell University pioneered 3D tissue printing technology to create living heart valves that possess the same anatomical structure as native valve.

To precisely produce an artificial valve, Butcher’s team had developed algorithms that process 3D image datasets of a native valve and automatically form the full 3D model of the heart valve. Bio-printing is then conducted in a dual syringe system with a mixture of alginate/gelatin hydrogel, smooth muscle cells and valve interstitial cells to mimic the structure of the valve root and leaflets.

Butcher believed bioprinting would gain much more traction in the tissue engineering and biomedical community over the coming years. The patient-specific tissue models would help healthcare professionals in learning disease pathogenesis and screening drug efficacy, or making living tissue replacements tailored directly to patient geometry.

Time to Get Started with Medical 3D Printing!

It is obvious that the trend of using 3D printing in medical field will keep growing, and it is time for us to utilize it to improve patient care.

If you find too complicated to start everything on your own, you can consider consulting with experienced companies. Novus provides medical grade 3D printing filament and 3D printing services for hospitals, researchers and vets.

Contact our expert advisors today at [email protected] for a free consultation.

• 3D Printing

Related Posts

3D Printing In Medical: What Is It? And Why Is It Important?

Choosing 3D Printing Materials for Different Medical Applications

Signup for news & special offers!

Thank you for subscription!

You can cancel your subscription at any time.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.6(4); 2020 Apr

Challenges of 3D printing technology for manufacturing biomedical products: A case study of Malaysian manufacturing firms

N. shahrubudin.

a Department of Production and Operation Management, Faculty of Technology Management and Business, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM), Parit Raja, 86400, Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia

b School of Materials Science and Engineering, UNSW, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

c Faculty of Engineering Technology, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM), Educational Hub Malaysia Pagoh, 84600 Panchor, Johor, Malaysia

M.H.A. Kadir

Additive manufacturing has attracted increasing attention worldwide, especially in the healthcare, biomedical, aerospace, and construction industries. In Malaysia, insufficient acceptance of this technology by local industries has resulted in a call for government and local practitioners to promulgate the development of this technology for various industries, particularly for biomedical products. The current study intends to frame the challenges endured by biomedical industries who use 3D printing technology for their manufacturing processes. Qualitative methods, particularly in-depth interviews, were used to identify the challenges faced by manufacturing firms when producing 3D printed biomedical products. This work was able to identify twelve key challenges when deploying additive manufacturing in biomedical products and these include issues related to binder selection, poor mechanical properties, low-dimensional accuracy, high levels of powder agglomeration, nozzle size, distribution size, limited choice of materials, texture and colour, lifespan of materials, customization of fit and design, layer height, and, lastly, build-failure. Furthermore, there also are six challenges in the management of manufacturing biomedical products using 3D printing technology, and these include staff re-education, product pricing, limited guidelines, cyber-security issues, marketing, and patents and copyright. This study discusses the reality faced by 3D printing players when producing biomedical products in Malaysia, and presents a primary reference for practitioners in other developing countries.

Business; Biomedical products; Additive manufacturing; 3D printing technology

1. Introduction

Additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing involves use of digital CAD modelling to build 3D objects by joining materials layer-by-layer [ 1 ]. The future demand for this technology lies in its capability to perform different print functions and "print-it-all" structures. These functions are progressively perceived as the driving force for researchers and practitioners even though 3D printing technology has seen significant developments in the last three decades [ 2 ]. Moreover, this technology has widely been applied towards the agricultural, biomedical, automotive, and aerospace industries [ 3 ]. 3D printing technology has emerged in recent years as a flexible and powerful technique in advanced manufacturing. According to Garcia et al. [ 4 ], this technology is used widely in the manufacturing industry and medical education field. The different methodologies used for additive manufacturing in the industry include fused deposition modelling (FDM), stereolithography (SLA), selective laser sintering (SLS), and bioprinting [ 5 ].

Although the 3D printing technology in Malaysia is clearly in the early developmental stage, this technology is expected to expand and become one of the country's major innovation, particularly in engineering, manufacturing, arts, education, and medicine. The vast majority of researchers have focused exclusively on engineering applications with focus on materials [ 6 ], processes [ 7 ], techniques [ 8 ], and machinery [ 9 ] used in optimization. To date, only limited studies have focused on the management aspects of technology, with discussions on the challenges [ 10 ] and supply chain management [ 11 ]. The existing studies on 3D printing technology have centred on developments in Europe and the USA, with limited focus on biomedical product fabrication, especially in developing countries like Malaysia [ 12 ].

Sandstrom [ 13 ] was concerned about the adaptation of 3D printing technology in the hearing aid manufacturing industry but the operational and technological challenges faced by producers were neglected. According to Shirazi et al. [ 14 ], 3D printed biomedical products differ from other printed products because they involve biocompatible materials and clinical testing ( in vitro and in vivo ) resulting in operational and technological challenges that are specific to the materials used. Thus, this study discusses the practices involved in manufacturing printed 3D biomaterial products, and, subsequently, fills the gap in the existing research from a management perspective. This study indicates a framework specific to the development of biomedical products. An in-depth interview with three local companies was carried out as the proposed framework to derive real perspectives from real players involved in 3D printing technology for producing biomedical products in Malaysia.

2. Literature review

2.1. 3d printing technology.

3D printing can create physical objects from a geometric representation by successive additions of materials [ 15 ]. The 3D printing technology has experienced phenomenal development in recent years ever since it was first commercialized in 1980 [ 16 ]. Since then, this technology has been principally used to create complex walls [ 17 ], endodontic guides [ 18 ], sport shoes [ 19 ], engine parts for the aviation industry [ 20 ], and tumour reconstruction [ 21 ]. Commonly, the 3D printing manufacturing process begins with a CAD drawing, followed by objects being sliced into layers, and, lastly, a layer-by-layer 3D build is printed. The 3D printing technology is equipped to fabricate functional parts with a wide range and combination of materials, including aluminium alloy [ 22 ], thermoplastic filaments [ 23 ], zirconia [ 24 ], carbon fibre-reinforced polymer composites [ 25 ], hydrogels [ 26 ], nanogels [ 26 ], and others. An ideal 3D printed biomaterial should morphologically mimic living tissue, be biocompatible, and be easily printable with tuneable degradation rates [ 27 ].

There are several types of 3D printing technologies with different functionalities. According to ASTM Standard F2792 [ 1 ], this technology can be classified into seven groups: binder jetting, directed energy deposition, material extrusion, material jetting, powder bed fusion, sheet lamination, and vat photo-polymerisation. More than 350 types of industrial 3D printing machines and 450 materials have been identified in the marketplace [ 28 ]. These machinery have their own specific applications, and pros and cons. According to Jammalamadaka and Tappa [ 29 ], well-known printers for biomedical products are those that are inkjet-based and extrusion-based.

There have been various types of 3D printers used dating back to 1984 with Charles Hull's ideas about a computer system based on stereolithography that uses the STL file format to interpret data in a CAD file [ 30 ]. The instructions in the STL file are encapsulated with information, such as the colour, texture, and thickness of the object to be printed [ 31 ]. Moreover, different types of printer are designed to print different products, of various scales in various industries, such as healthcare [ 32 ], food [ 33 ], automotive [ 34 ], and architecture [ 35 ]. In the 21 st century, 3D printing technology began expanding into aircraft manufacturing (producing robotic components), and, subsequently, established the Industry 4.0 paradigm in institutions of higher learning and manufacturing sectors [ 36 ]. The following are several advantages derived from using 3D printing technology [ 37 ]:

• • Customise desired products in a short time;
• • Create complex objects and shapes that otherwise might be impossible to create through any conventional method;
• • Produce biocompatible products, such as organs or replacement tissues, in a short time compared to conventional methods;
• • Cost-effective; and
• • Non-requirement of storage of goods or materials.

To sum up, there are several characteristic features for each 3D printing technology application and this could the larger-scale implementation of this technology.

2.2. Application of 3D printing for producing biomedical products

Recently, 3D printing technology has rapidly flourished in the industry for the purpose of designing, developing, and manufacturing new products. There are numerous applications of 3D printing technology for producing biomedical products such as drugs, artificial skin, bone cartilage, tissue, and organs, and in cancer research and education.

2.2.1. Drug delivery

In August 2015, the FDA endorsed the use of 3D printing technology for pharmaceutical research and manufacturing [ 38 ]. A higher production volume of medicines is achievable through 3D printing technology due to the printer's ability to control the exact drop size and shape. This process allows for higher reproducibility of medicine and formulates a ready dose-shape based on a complex medication discharge profile. An example in drug delivery is the oral tablet produced by 3D printing technology. Oral tablets are the most difficult to manufacture and its successful production by using 3D printing technology is open to further scrutiny [ 39 ]. The previous process produces an oral tablet via a complex layer of mixing, milling and dry and wet granulation of powdered ingredients formed through moulds or the compression. Each of these traditional steps involve difficulties, such as drug degradation, form change, and potential problems with formulation or batch failures [ 34 ]. Some of the examples of oral tablets are flat-faced [ 40 ], spritam (levetiracetam) [ 41 ], and paracetamol [ 42 ]. Presently, analysts use vapour-stream as a 3D printing method to keep drug measurements on an assortment of surfaces that incorporate dissolvable Listerine tabs [ 43 ]. In the meantime, 3D printing technology can also produce antibiotic and chemotherapeutic drugs that are customized according to patient anatomy and clinical presentation [ 44 ].

2.2.2. Skin

A process to create a generic 3D-skin structure with minimal costs using 3D printing technology has been successfully achieved. This 3D printed skin is useful as a medium to test pharmaceutical products, beautifying agents, and synthetic items. New 3D human skin models could replace animal trials to assess dermal sensitivity to a medical design. Subsequently, it will enable specialists to achieve precise results after repetitive printing trials [ 45 ]. So far, in vitro and in situ are two existing approaches in skin bioprinting. Both approaches have a similar process except for tissue maturation and the site of printing. The in vitro bio-printed skin maturation begins in a bioreactor before it is grafted on the skin. Meanwhile, the in situ bioprinting constitutes the direct printing of pre-cultured cells over an injured site. This process supports a recovering wound upon local maturation [ 46 ]. Several types of bioprinting technology have been used to prepare 3D-skin, such as laser-assisted [ 47 ], micro-extrusion [ 48 ], and inkjet bioprinting [ 49 ]. To facilitate the 3D printed skin process, a range of natural biomaterials like cellulose [ 47 ], alginate [ 50 ], GelMA-collagen [ 51 ], hydrogels [ 52 ], keratinocytes (KCs) [ 48 ], fibroblasts (FBs) [ 48 ], carbon nanotubes [ 53 ], and others have been employed. The availability of suitable biomaterials and technology advancement has resulted in bioprinting being used successfully to fabricate 3D-skin [ 47 ].

2.2.3. Bone cartilage

Bone cartilage is a a highly diverse and dynamic tissue, both in function and structure. These properties are due to its ability to perform a wide array of functions, including response to a variety of physical, metabolic, and endocrine stimuli. For mutual injuries, bone has a self-healing capability to form scar-free tissue. However, there are injuries that might emerge in non-union or union delays that require bone regeneration [ 54 ]. In this case, 3D printing technology can print tissues to fill out voids in bone defects that are caused by tumour resection, trauma, injury, or infection [ 55 ]. This treatment is distinct and provides an alternative to auto-unions and allografts to maintain health or enhance the in vivo capacity. Examples of products manufactured by 3D printing technology include cranial portions, bone frameworks, embedding bearings in skull, and bio-fired inserts [ 56 ]. Recently, Liu et al. [ 57 ], suggested that these 3D printing technologies have a higher possibility of repairing fractured bone structure. Meanwhile, Du et al. [ 58 ], constructed a bioinspired multilayer osteochondral scaffold consisting of hydroxyapatite (HA)/polycaprolactone (PCL) and PCL microspheres using the SLS process. The derived scaffolds present excellent biocompatibility and can induce articulate cartilage formation in cases of osteochondral defects in a rabbit.

2.2.4. Tissues

In a similar manner, 3D printing technology can be utilized to supplant, re-establish, maintain, or enhance the capacity of tissues. The substitute tissues created by 3D printing technology have organized interconnected pores, are biocompatible, and possess excellent mechanical properties. The organized interconnected pores are crucial for wastes removal and improving oxygen and nutrient supply, while the mechanical properties help to match the tissue at the site of the implantation [ 59 ]. For example, tissue processes that utilize 3D printing technology have printed some delicate tissue structures such as tooth-supporting tissues and jawbones [ 60 ].

2.2.5. Organs

By using 3D printing technology, autologous organs can be printed without any need for immunosuppressive medication or waiting for a donor. This can potentially put an end to the illegal trade in human organs [ 61 ]. With the help of 3D printing technology, it is possible to directly print human organs for replacing damaged organs caused by infections, mishaps, or congenital defects [ 62 ]. The most commonly printed organs with this technology are the liver, heart valve, ear, and spinal columns [ 63 ]. There are currently new ventures to deliver bio-printed organs that are made with the vascular design of a natural organ produced through bio-printing design. The uniform cells can be isolated, cultured in vitro and differentiated into specific cell types, which then regenerate specific tissues [ 64 ]. According to Jang et al. [ 65 ], the organ transplantation process is preceded by hydrogel composite systems, and this can be carried out via use of repaired and bio-printed organs in a bioreactor [ 39 ].

2.2.6. Cancer research

3D printing technology can revolutionize cancer treatment by printing personalized hydrogels, prostheses, and therapeutic implants [ 66 ]. Early diagnosis is essential for reducing cancer mortality and effectively treating the disease. Therefore, the development of accurate and sensitive methods to detect cancer at its early stages has been intensively studied [ 67 ]. Thus, utilizing 3D printing technology allows patients to obtain more dependable and accurate information. Presently, 3D demonstration of in vitro diseases allows more noteworthy cell feasibility, higher expansion rate, and higher chemo-resistance to anti-cancer medications and helps in providing data related to the qualities of a genuine tumour [ 68 , 69 ]. For example, 3D printing technology can produce the mandible template using PLA polymer filament or titanium. The template is sterilized according to the Sterrad (low-temperature hydrogen peroxide gas plasma technology) process, which uses H 2 O 2 plasma and UV irradiation before it is available for treating cancer patients [ 69 ].

2.2.7. Educational

3D printout models can be used in the learning process to help neurosurgeons hone surgical skills. By implementing 3D printing technology, neurosurgeons can enhance their precision and provide short opportunities to mentor the process throughout the clinical system. As the 3D display provides a re-enactment of a genuine patient's condition, the printer helps the neurosurgeon by providing hands-on experience. Additionally, 3D printing provides visual instrumentation that allows the specialist to share data with patients. Neurosurgeons can share their expertise in pathology and its related concerns to provide long-term care-overview for the immediate prescription of medication to patients [ 70 ]. At the same time, 3D printed models can also be used to educate patients and help them to better understand their conditions [ 71 ]. Figure 1 shows the present application of 3D printing technology in biomedical products.

The applications of 3D printing technology for biomedical products.

3. Research framework

This study has developed a conceptual framework related to the challenges faced by 3D printing technology based on previous studies. These challenges are laid out in the following sections.

3.1. Processing

3.1.1. materials.

One of the challenges when making bone tissue using 3D printing technology is binder fitting [ 56 ]. Not all binders are suitable for use in the sintering process. For example, when producing bone tissue using stereolithography (SLA), only photopolymers are suitable. Among the different binders, organic ones are considered to be the best in producing high quality 3D printed parts or products. However, during the long operational process, this organic binder affects the plastic parts of 3D printing machines [ 56 ]. Conversely, Bogue [ 59 ] claimed that the selection of a suitable binder is the main challenge when fabricating 3D scaffolds.

Bose et al. [ 56 ], mentioned that the focus in fabricating bone tissue lies in optimising the mechanical properties of the porous scaffold. This scaffold is generally a ceramic material which is known to have high porosity and low mechanical properties. This challenge was also supported by Egan et al. [ 72 ], who claimed that engineered scaffold tissue is difficult to optimize due to the complexity involved in interfacing mechanical properties and biological systems. The design requires consideration on mechanical properties, biological performances, and fabrication constraints. The mechanical integrity of the scaffold structure is essential for the promotion of cellular growth. Vasireddi & Basu [ 73 ] stated that achieving sufficient mechanical strength and manufacturing feasibility are among the salient challenges. The well-perceived requirement of materials used for fabrication is still inadequate to print varying structures owing to the fact that these aspects include consideration of geometric selection criteria, thickness of the layer, and the minimum ratio between distribution ratios of pore sizes.

Furthermore, the particle size of the powder influences the thickness of the printed layer [ 73 ]. Distribution of sizes and shapes of the powder also affect the quality of scaffolds [ 73 ]. Lack of pore interconnectivity affects the mechanical properties of 3D scaffolds. The powder must be biocompatible and biodegradable as scaffolds need to promote tissue regeneration after implantation [ 74 ]. Hydrogel materials can further aid cell migration and growth to improve the speed of tissue regeneration and repair by replacing a functional material with bionic characteristics resembling extracellular matrix with highly networked 3D structures.

According to Boetker et al. [ 75 ], the challenge of adopting 3D printing technology is to determine suitable materials that can match the flow properties and requirements for adjusting the nozzle temperature and speed of 3D printing. The flow properties are sensitive to the number of undissolved particles used in the printing process. To date, materials used for 3D printing have been limited by the particle properties. Lee et al. [ 76 ], mentioned that the challenge for 3D printing technology when producing membranes and membrane module components is the selection of materials for printing [ 76 ]. The limited choice of materials suitable for designing membrane modules is the main challenge when producing 3D printed objects. Yap et al. [ 77 ], suggested that the challenge in printing 3D objects is the limited choice of materials, such as biocompatible or bioresorbable materials. The materials used to print 3D objects are selected based on the printing resolution, 3D printing process, and the material requirements based on similarity and suitability for organs and tissues. The materials must be selected and refined according to the purpose or application in the model [ 77 ].

Yap et al. [ 77 ], found that the challenge in fabricating ophthalmic models includes the texture and colour of products that need to be similar to the printed organ. Meanwhile, according to Chang [ 78 ], a challenge faced when producing 3D printed biomedical products is the similarity in colour to the printed product. Multi-extruder 3D printers are available but provide unrealistic results because the melted plastic cools down as soon as it touches the supporting bed and becomes solidified. These multi-extruder 3D printers cannot mix solidified droplets to obtain a continuous full-colour object as the droplets are too large. Some colour 3D printers also try to mix coloured materials before extruding them, but it is difficult to mix melted thermoplastic since it melts >200 °C and cools rapidly if not insulated.

3.1.2. Printers

Pires et al. [ 79 ], reported that the challenge of 3D printing technology in tissue engineering is with maintaining the accurate dimensions, particularly with the thickness. The accuracy of 3D prints depends on the design of the products as 3D printing technology is not suitable for unsupported long-thin features or flat surfaces. Accuracy will also reduce the size of the part. Scott [ 80 ] also mentioned that dimensional accuracy is an issue with fused deposition modelling (FDM)-based printing. However, by using inkjet or poly-jet models, it is possible to obtain very high levels of accuracy and resolution. The dimensional accuracy of a part is determined by several factors, such as the software, XY resolution, screw movements of the machines on the platform and the firmware controls on the projector.

Powder agglomeration is a challenge faced by most manufacturers when producing samples [ 79 ]. Larger pore agglomeration results in a non-homogeneous microstructure that eventually eliminates the binder, specifically during sintering which leads to poor densification. Powder morphology and sintering temperature also affects the HA densification, behaviour, microstructure, porosity, and stability. According to Shirazi et al. [ 14 ], the increasing speed of the laser scanner causes parts of the sample to be solidified. This effect is due to the expanding interactions between the powder and the laser beam over time, which reduces the delivery rate of energy onto the powder bed. However, a laser scanner with a lower speed results in high amounts of energy being transferred to the material, leading to high levels of sintering and in turn, less porosity.

According to Husain et al. [ 81 ], one of the challenges of current 3D printing technology for producing biomedical products is the difficulty in achieving a nanoscale resolution for clinically relevant biomedical products. Advanced 3D bioprinting techniques were developed to fabricate the next generation of complex biocompatible and biomimetic tissue constructs, such as vascular grafts, dermal dressing, osteochondral tissues, and neural tissues. This statement was also supported by Vasireddi & Basu [ 73 ], who said that the challenge of producing 3D scaffolds is the limited resolution of a 3D printer caused by the size of the nozzle [ 73 ]. This statement was supported by Yan et al. [ 74 ], who claimed that problems, such as limited printing resolution during the process, need to be resolved.

3.2. Management

From the management's perspective, several challenges were identified. Firstly, according to Sandstrom [ 13 ], the challenge related to the adaptation of 3D printed hearing aids in the industry is the re-education of staff to adopt the new technology. The use of software and printers requires the acquisition of new skills by all technicians. Highly skilled technicians are needed in the manual stages involved in producing a 3D hearing aid which include the sculpting, moulding, and curing stages. The technician requires manual and visual skills. Meanwhile, Lind et al. [ 82 ], claimed that current workers require specific skills in organizing 3D printing technology, especially for biomedical products. The company requires highly skilled workers when implementing 3D printing technology for biomedical products.

The next challenge in adopting 3D printing technology is the cost [ 13 ]. The application of 3D printing technology for biomedical products is affected by several cost factors, such as cost of materials, utility, and technological maintenance. In addition, the implementation of 3D printing is associated with various forms of related investment, including hardware, software, and system integration [ 83 ].

According to Mellor et al. [ 12 ], the challenge to develop new businesses in the 3D printing manufacturing industry is related to the size of the company. Proven theories in large enterprises might not be suitable for small businesses. The structure of the organization is a key factor in implementing a 3D printing business. Companies that adopt the technology without redesigning their organizational structure and processes will be the first to encounter difficulties. On the other hand, there are challenges when using 3D printing technology in a different manufacturing industry. It is more feasible to use 3D printing technology in small scale production, especially when there is uncertainty with regard to the demand [ 84 ].

Meanwhile, Gao et al. [ 85 ], found that the challenge of producing a 3D product is the lack of guidelines for a fundamental design. The materials and machines used vary according to the type of biomedical products that need to be produced. Therefore, a designer is required to carry out a trial and error process to obtain the desired products. This claim was also supported by Pavlovich et al. [ 86 ], who stated that the coordinated standards and regulatory pathways for biomedical products are still lacking. The quality control system should be integrated into the manufacturing process to ensure that the 3D printed biomedical products are well defined, characterized, and meet the regulatory standards.

Lastly, according to Sturm et al. [ 87 ], using 3D printing technology presents opportunities for cyber-attacks to impact the physical world. This is because 3D printing technology needs internet connectivity to function and is often connected to internal networks. This allows for useful features, such as remote diagnosis troubleshooting, which also opens up the potential for a cyber-attack that compromises the systems remotely [ 87 ]. Hoffman and Volpe [ 88 ] mentioned that 3D printing technology offers numerous attack surfaces for cyber operations, including the CAD model, the STL file, the tool-path file, and the physical machine itself. As a result, the confidentiality, integrity, availability of data and even fabricated physical components in these systems are at risk. A hacker might target the confidentiality of the digital build files to steal intellectual property and production information or compromise the integrity of the critical data and software to disrupt or sabotage the 3D printing process [ 88 ].

There are various examples of challenges that occur before, during, or after utilizing 3D printing technology for manufacturing biomedical products. Figure 2 shows a summary of the challenges faced when utilizing 3D printing technology to manufacture biomedical products based on the literature.

Summary of the challenges of 3D printing technology for biomedical products.

4. Research methodology

This study used a descriptive method to investigate the challenges of utilizing 3D printing on biomedical products in Malaysia, which involved interviews at Company X, Y, and Z. Three persons representing the top management of Companies X, Y, and Z were interviewed. They included an application engineer, a mechanical engineer, and a technical development manager. The qualitative case study method was chosen in this study, as it enables a strong description to address the research questions [ 89 ].

4.1. Company background

Company X (Respondent 1) was founded in 1990. The company's objective was to develop new uses of 3D printing that have excellent potential. Since its founding, it has gained much experience in solving problems related to software, engineering, and 3D printing services that, together form the backbone of the industry. Furthermore, its open and flexible platforms enable various industries, such as healthcare, automotive, aerospace, art and design, and consumer goods to build innovative applications of 3D printing. This company has become the largest group of software developers in the industry and is one of the largest facilities involved in 3D printing technology in the world. Ultimately, this company is giving its customers a choice of transforming and adopting new digital manufacturing processes and to launch innovations. By utilizing 3D printing, the relevant stakeholders have the potential to change the culture of their industry in the future.

Company Y (Respondent 2) was established in the 2000s with the aim of delivering solutions using the latest high-end technologies. Since then, this company has gained much experience in all aspects of 3D printing technology, especially in 3D bioprinters and has developed customised scientific setups and fabrication machines with programmed system controls. Company Y is also proficient in the field of customized machinery, design museum gallery, rapid prototyping, and professional laser cutting, and highly proficient in 3D living tissue printing.

Since 1980, Company Z (Respondent 3) is the leading and most established CAD, CAM, and CAE solutions provider in Malaysia. This company has grown into a leading product design and manufacturing solutions provider in Malaysia. With numerous clients from corporations, government sectors, and educational partners, this company has established a strong presence locally and expanded its business coverage nationwide. With innovation as its core, this organization effortlessly pursues the best-in-class design solutions and new technologies. In Malaysia, this organization works with Stratasys and is responsible for distributing, selling, and supporting their products in this country. Company Z has branches throughout the country in Penang, Johor, Selangor, and Sarawak. All the branches of the company are capable of distributing CAD/CAM/CAE software solutions using rapid prototyping 3D printers or 3D scanners, and provide consultancy and engineering services, technical support or training, and certification courses to their customers.

5. Results and discussion

5.1. challenges faced during processing, 5.1.1. materials.

Several challenges were identified after the interview sessions, with a primary focus on the selection of suitable binders, which vary according to the types of products.

Respondent R1 stated that:

“One of the most challenging tasks faced by engineers and designers is to select a suitable binder for the 3D printing process because each product or design has its own unique binder .” –R1

Meanwhile, Respondent R2 stated:

“So, (like for) anything, to produce biomedical products, we have to select suitable binders because not all types of binders are biocompatible.” – R2

Overall, based on the data collected, Respondents R1 and R2 noted that the selection of suitable binders varied according to the type of product that they wanted to produce. Different binders can have different effects on the biocompatibility of 3D printed biomedical products.

Binder selection is based on the targeted application and capabilities of the printer and printer head. For biodegradable parts, the binder must also be biodegradable, non-toxic, easy to handle, and readily available. In the context of renewable materials, the binder should also be based on natural or renewable resources. Hence, due to these requirements, common binders for 3D-printing are not acceptable [ 90 ]. The 3D printing technology might use metal, polymer, hydrogels, resin, glass, ceramic, or polymer as materials to build 3D printed products. The binder is placed layer-by-layer onto a powder by the 3D printing machine's head. Therefore, the selection of suitable binders can be considered a challenge in the utilization of 3D printing technology for biomedical products.

The mechanical strength of products is another challenge in 3D printing technology. In terms of mechanical strength, the challenge of producing 3D printed biomedical products is to determine the suitable strength of 3D printed products. Most engineers worry if the biomedical product is not strong enough and has low mechanical strength. The engineer needs to check the 3D printed biomedical product to determine whether it has adequate tensile strength and stiffness to avoid end products that are of low quality and have low mechanical strength.

According to Respondent R1,

“You need to check the implant, either if it is suitable or appropriate with the tensile stress strength, Young's modulus or not. All these must (be) measure(d). This is because, the products sometime do not achieve or meet the required mechanical properties. For example, 3D printed biomedical products become brittle and/or have low Young's modulus. So, we can see that the mechanical strength of a product is considered as one of the challenges to produce 3D printed biomedical products.” –R1

In addition, Respondent R3 stated:

“For specific 3D printed materials, the mechanical performance of the final print is very important. There are challenges to produce 3D printed biomedical products with good mechanical strength and suitable to the human body. The final printed part mainly depends on the inter-diffusion and re-entanglement between the deposition rasters of the fused polymer.” – R3

Hence, the development of prostheses is something that is external to the body and often requires the use of materials that not only look like human skin but also matches the strength of the human body part. The well-perceived requirement for material fabrication is still inadequate for various structures because these aspects include criteria, such as geometric selection, layer thickness, and the minimum ratio between pore sizes [ 73 ]. Zhang et al. [ 91 ], found that mechanical properties are sensitive to printing parameters, such as laser scanning speed, powder layer thickness and laser power. Mechanical properties are very important for load-bearing bone tissue reconstruction. Implants with too much stiffness would bear the most stress under pressure, but bone tissue cannot be stimulated by stress. The ideal bone tissue engineering scaffold has macro-pores of ~300–900 μm and a porosity of 60–95%. 3D printing technology, such as SLM, can produce precise porous titanium implants with a pore size of 400–1000 μm, which exhibit excellent osteointegration performance in vivo [ 91 ]. Furthermore, according to Ji et al. , (2018), a scaffold pore diameter ranging between 200 and 400 μm is considered adequate [ 92 ]. Meanwhile, Qing et al. [ 93 ], pointed out that emphasis should be on capsule and tendon reconstruction. The joint capsule and load points of muscle and tendons are unstable and break down due to massive bone defects. Therefore, before processing the implants, the prosthesis is wrapped in polypropylene monofilament knitted mesh (PMKM) [ 93 ]. Therefore, the mechanical strength of products is another challenge affecting the utilisation of 3D printing technology.

The size distribution and shape of the powder are challenges in the production of 3D printed biomedical products. Good powder density, including flowability, directly affects the potential to produce good layers during the printing process. Respondent R1 stated that the physical and chemical properties of the powder not only impact the 3D printing process but also affect the properties and quality of 3D printed biomedical products. For example, to produce the trachea, the particle size of the powder must exhibit good biocompatibility and biodegradability, and the trachea must integrate with human tissue to promote tissue regeneration after implantation. Respondent R3 also supported this statement.

Respondent R3 stated that:

“The size distribution and shape of the powder can affect the optical and thermal properties of particles. The layer properties of the powder largely depend on the powder flowability and density. Lack of pore interconnectivity network caused by the lower bounds of porosity affects the mechanical properties of 3D printed biomedical products” –R3

From the transcribed data, Respondents R1 and R3 stated that the size distribution and shape of the powder is the main challenge when utilizing 3D printing technology for biomedical products. This is because the size distribution and shape of the powder can directly affect the production of good 3D printed products.

According to Mostafaie et al. [ 94 ], small powder particles produce a large quantity of small pores distributed throughout the entire part, while large powder particles produce a small number of large pores heterogeneously distributed in the product [ 94 ]. Generally, spherical particles within a narrow size range are preferred as they flow more easily and can be deposited more homogeneously. On the other hand, if the size range is too narrow, the powder packing density decreases, which then generates voids and inhomogeneities in the final component. Oversized particles might cause defects in the powder's thin layer and in as the structure of the finished component [ 95 ]. Therefore, the selection of the type of powder of an appropriate size and shape is very important for all the companies.

Hence, the limited choice of materials that possess excellent properties for the human body or organ is a challenge faced when producing 3D printed biomedical products. The materials used to produce 3D printed biomedical products must be similar and suitable to human organs and tissues. Respondent R1 stated that materials must be selected properly and scrutinised according to the purpose and application. This is because, sometimes, the customer would request a flexible material that is difficult to break, so the respondent must make it clear how to produce a flexible product that is difficult to fracture. Respondent R2 also supported a similar statement by Respondent R1.

Respondent R1 mentioned that:

“ So, actually we have to examine numerous properties about the material. First, it must be biocompatible to make sure this material can be used in the patient's body .”

Respondent R1 also stated that:

“Sometimes the challenge is to choose (the) right material properties. Because sometimes the customer says he wants (a) flexible material (that) does not break. However, this is difficult for us to (achieve). We have to make it clear, how to make it flexible, but not broken or torn. So, (to obtain the) ideal material properties according to customer requirements in materials selection is the challenge for us.”

Based on the transcribed data, all the respondents stated that the limited choice of materials is the main challenge when utilizing 3D printing technology for biomedical products. This is because the materials must be biocompatible, of good quality, and safe for use in the patient's body.

Therefore, each material has its own properties, which may have varying suitabilities for producing biomedical products using 3D printing technology. There are certain materials that have good printing properties but weak cell-culture properties. It is very challenging to ensure that the material can dissolve in the patient's body and allow it to function naturally. According to Jammalamadaka & Tappa [ 29 ], biomaterials are classified based on numerous criteria, such as chemical and physical composition, biodegradability, type of origin, and generation of modifications. The choice of biomaterial is determined depending on the target tissue. Furthermore, Gopinathan & Noh [ 96 ] pointed out that the biomaterial properties include the printability, biocompatibility, cytocompatibility, and bioactivity of the cells after printing. Therefore, the selection of appropriate materials is very important for all companies. According to the requirements of the desired tissue and organ, the biomaterials should be selected and can be modified to regenerate the appropriate tissue structure or organ.

Furthermore, in 3D printing, products, texture, and colour play a huge role in making the products stand out. According to Respondent R3, customers request products that are identical to the true organ so that they want to feel like they are really doing an emergency surgery. The old machines allow printing with different materials but with limited colour choice. Therefore, they invented new 3D printing machines so that coloured products can be printed.

Respondent R3 stated:

“When the customers perform the operation or surgical training, (the) colour of the 3D organs is white. (However), (a) 3D organ or 3D part must have colour. So, they request (that we) make (the) products similar to a true organ.” – R3

Hence, Respondent R3 stated that the texture and colour are some of the challenges when producing 3D printed biomedical products.

A newly discovered challenge when utilizing 3D printing technology in this study was the lifespan of materials. Respondent R3 mentioned that each material used has a limited life span and that this is an important factor to be considered. Theoretically, if a material is used after the specified expiry date, its properties might be affected, and this could lead to products that are harmful to the patient. From a clinical point of view, this could lead to failures such as excessive wear, fracture, or discoloration.

“All the material(s) have (expiry) date(s). The lifetime for the resin is very short. Therefore, the expired material is very (challenging) for us. When we purchase a syringe of composite, three important aspects are the storage condition, batch number and the expiration date. Most of the direct materials have a limited shelf life.” – Respondent 3

According to Respondent R3, all the materials have an expiry date; for example, the resin's lifetime is very short. Therefore, the selection of appropriate materials with a long-life span is important. Expired materials cannot enter the human body as it would then adversely affect the patient. This is due to the reduction in the product quality, which makes the product become brittle and causing cracking and discolouration. Hence, the research and development of novel resins with a longer lifespan must be intensively conducted to overcome this problem.

5.1.2. Printers

Low dimensional accuracy is a challenge in the utilization of 3D printing technology to produce 3D printed biomedical products. The design plays an important role in producing highly accurate 3D printed products. Respondent R1 said that the accuracy of 3D printed biomedical products depends on the design. For example, variations in curing and cooling can lead to shrinkage or warping. Respondent R2 also supported the statement of Respondent R1 and mentioned that:

“Long (and) thin unsupported features or a flat surface will cause low dimensional accuracy of a 3D printed product.” –R2

Respondent R2 added that:

“Accuracy also depends on materials. For instance, standard SLA resin will produce more dimensionally accurate parts than flexible resin. Standard materials are recommended for parts where high accuracy is critical” – R2

From the transcribed data, R1 and R2 informed that the design and materials play important roles to produce biomedical products. According to R1 and R2, the design and materials play important roles in producing highly accurate 3D printed biomedical products.

Therefore, it can be concluded that developing the exact shape, size, and minute geometrical textures on artificial biomedical implants are essentially important for its proper functionality [ 97 ]. However, it is difficult to produce 3D printed biomedical products with the exact size and structure when using randomly selected machines and materials. Thus, if the dimensional accuracy is low, then the product will not fit in the body, and, at the same time will affect the clinical success rate of the product. Machines and materials should be carefully chosen to achieve the appropriate level of accuracy. According to Bertol et al. [ 98 ], the dimensional accuracy of the printed implants measured by 3D laser scanning showed an average of 200 μm, which allows its application in craniofacial structures [ 98 ]. Meanwhile, according to Osman et al. [ 99 ], digital light processing (DLP) has proved to be efficient for printing customized zirconia dental implants with sufficient dimensional accuracy. Hence, to produce 3D printed biomedical products, low dimensional accuracy is the main challenge. Therefore, the engineer and doctor should prudently choose the right machines and materials to produce 3D printed biomedical products.

In 3D printing technology, powder agglomeration is another challenge when producing 3D printed biomedical products. The binders are difficult to eliminate during sintering and this leads to poor densification when non-homogeneous microstructures result from agglomeration with larger pores.

According to Respondent R2:

“It is difficult to produce (a) printed product (without) relating to the agglomeration of powder. Compared to other 3D printed products, 3D printed biomedical products have more problems related to the agglomeration of powder. The large pores caused by agglomeration can affect the 3D printed biomedical product and sintering temperature can affect the densification, behaviour, microstructure, and porosity of 3D printed biomedical products.” –R2

In a nutshell, the limitation of powder agglomeration is one of the challenges in the utilization of 3D printing technology to produce biomedical products. Agglomeration can affect the process of producing 3D printed parts, such as causing low densification, which is very difficult to eliminate during sintering.

Therefore, the powder for 3D printing needs to fulfil certain requirements for the successful printing of 3D printed products. The required accuracy, such as in the layer thickness for z direction as well as print resolution for x and y directions defines the upper boundary for the particle sizes. Handling and processing properties, such as a tendency to agglomerate, electrostatic charging, and flowability that diminishes below a certain particle size should also be considered. Thus, if powder agglomeration occurs, the product will crack and produce large pores. Hence, the particle distribution needs to be carefully set to avoid powder agglomeration [ 90 ].

The printer nozzle size is another challenge in the utilization of 3D printing technology for biomedical products. The diameter of the nozzle directly affects the 3D printer extrusion width of each line in the product.

According to Respondent R1:

“Now, in theory, smaller sizes of the nozzle(s) do allow (us) to achieve successful precision.” –R1

“If you use (a) 3D printer for doing large quantities of 3D printed biomedical products, you will want to make sure your extruder is laying down the right amount. Depending on the 3D printer, several nozzles can be interchanged reasonably easy.” – R3

From the interviews, Respondent R3 supported the answers of R1 whereby the size of the nozzle can be considered a challenge in the utilization of 3D printing technology for biomedical products. The size of the nozzle is very important to ensure that the production of 3D printed biomedical products occurs smoothly. Smaller nozzle sizes can allow for the construction of biocompatible and biomimetic complex tissues.

According to Do et al. [ 100 ], the shear stress from the multi-sized nozzles could negatively impact cell viability during the printing process. Meanwhile, Patra et al. [ 101 ], stated that nozzle size will affect the viability of the materials printed. The nozzle size also affects the stacking of different printing paths. For example, the round nozzle could produce a product with a cross-section of an elliptical shape, and, hence result in high void density in the printed part. The nozzle size also affects the surface finish of the part because of the staircase effect, especially in large-scale 3D printing [ 102 ]. Conversely, Blaeser et al. [ 103 ], pointed out that the level of shear stress is directly influenced by different printing parameters, such as nozzle diameter. These phenomena are even more crucial in bioprinting, where hydrogels of high viscosity and small nozzles are applied to improve the final printing resolution. In conclusion, when selecting the 3D printing nozzle size, the major factor is all about balancing how much filament is extruded and the speed of the process. A smaller nozzle size allows the manufacturer to achieve better precision in printing.

A new challenge has been identified, which is to customize the fit and design of a 3D vascularized organ. For example, skulls have irregular shapes, and so it is difficult to make cranial implants. Implants and prostheses can be made in any imaginable geometry through the translation of X-ray, MRI, or CT scans into digital STL files. According to Respondent 1, the engineer must ensure that the fit and design of the object is customized to a desired shape, size and fit. A design is provided according to the size and specifications of a certain patient and it cannot be used for other patients because each human has unique body parts.

“Because this is a patient's specific implant that I designed for you, so I cannot use this product for your friends. This is because the design just (fits) your body. So, if I design one for you, I cannot use that design for your friends.” – R1

In order to bio-print thick tissues, highly repeatable and straightforward technologies and protocols should be developed in a logical manner, beginning from simple to difficult steps. For example, the eardrum is a very small part. Hence, it is very challenging for engineers to produce an eardrum of a certain size or specification according to a patient. Respondent R2 said:

“Okay, I give the example, eardrum. So, get the test, limitation printed. This printer can go up to 5 microns.” – R2

Respondents R1 and R2 stated that a product is designed according to the size and specification of certain patients and cannot be used for other patients. Therefore, customizing the fit and design is one of the challenges in producing 3D printed products. In conclusion, multi-physics, as well as analytical and computational modelling techniques should be used to determine the best microarchitecture for specific applications. All the relevant mechanical, biological, and physical properties of the biomaterial should be considered when producing a 3D printed object.

Furthermore, a new challenge in 3D printing technology in this study is the layer height. All 3D printing methods are based on a layer-by-layer building of a part. Printing is fast and produces the best prints with the right layer height. Choosing the appropriate layer height with the most accurate material setting is another challenge in utilizing 3D printing technology for biomedical products.

A high layer height usually results in a printed part with hard surfaces. The downside to this is an increase in the time to complete a print. Examples of processes, such as that used by FDM and SLA machines, prove that layer height is an important design parameter that impacts the printing time, cost, visual appearance and physical properties of a printed part. Respondent R2 mentioned that:

“Printing parameters like layer height play a crucial role in fabricating biocompatible scaffolds with required mechanical strength and pore size. Layer height is ordinary. The faster it prints, the less the quality of the product. If we want to produce a delicate model and want to be 30 millimetres (mm), then we have to set it up for slow production. Because, a higher layer means lower quality.” – R2

Respondent R2 believes that another challenge of utilizing 3D printing technology for biomedical products is the need to choose the right layer height with accurate material settings. This is because the faster the printer prints, the lower the quality of the biomedical product. To produce a delicate model, the set up must be for a slow production. A higher number of layers means that a lower quality product is produced.

In order to cope with this challenge, the engineer must optimise the best layer height by conducting numerous experiments to check and seek a solution. 3D printing builds a printed part by printing one layer at a time. Each subsequent layer is printed on the previous layer, and, finally, builds the desired 3D shape. Then, in order to make a solid and reliable final print, the engineer ensures that each layer is fully bonded to the layer below it. Furthermore, the engineer needs to make sure that the layer height matches the nozzle diameter.

Lastly, “build failure” is another new emerging challenge in 3D printing technology. The common cause of this is due to 3D materials that are not lying horizontal on the build plate when preparing the software, including rafts that cause the print to separate from the base, not adding supports when a model has any part overhanging in empty space, and creating models that are too thin. The “build failure” can also occur when the filament is jammed, or when there is loss of power or from extrusion errors.

“To produce 3D printed biomedical products using the printer, the first step is to export the file from the computer to the printer. Next, the printer will process the information contained in the file and then will print the . This situation is called “build failed”. –R1

Respondent R3 also said:

“Sometimes, we do the production of (a) 3D printed biomedical products. The challenge we face is (when) the build failed. This happens when the machine (loses) power suddenly. So, it will look like “spaghetti”. –R3

Based on the interview sessions, Respondent R3 supported the answer of R1, who said that “build failed” can be considered a challenge in the utilization of 3D printing technology for biomedical products. When this happens, the printing process should be restarted beginning with the first step. The best way to prevent over extrusion is to ensure that the layer height is less than the nozzle diameter and the speed of the cooling fan is increased. Additionally, to avoid this issue, the engineers should check the nozzle for clogs and increase the hot-end temperature [ 104 ].

5.2. Challenges in management

Possessing a high level of knowledge and skill in using software is very important for producing 3D printed objects. Company X provides training programmes for new employees in order to produce high quality products with high dimensional accuracy and features. Various programmes are conducted, such as mentor-mentee, employee exchange programmes to Belgium, and others to obtain new experience. As for the business or sales sector, employees will have access to taks or training for their workers.

“ We have training in Belgium for new workers, so new employees can get the new information about 3D printing technology. Even here, we have dedicated trainers. The trainers are (workers) who (have) been working a long time. So, those trainers will be mentors for (newbies). Therefore, usually we will set the programme or training for them and do it internally. If it is about business or sales, we will have access to another company to come here to do some training or talk. Usually because of many years of experiences (in) 3D printing, we have internal trainers that can give training or (talks). ”

Respondent R3 also supported Respondent R1, by stating that the re-education of staff can be considered as a challenge in the utilization of 3D printing technology. According to Respondent R3, their company is not just making normal 3D printers that are commonly available. It aims to make 3D printers to produce biomedical products with high precision. Therefore, employees working in this company must possess the expertise. The company provides training to its employees because it has several working procedures that need to be followed and it requires employees with expertise for these roles. All employees need to gain expertise in diverse physicochemical and biopharmaceutical characteristics of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) through each stage of product development. Respondent R3 mentioned that:

“ We are not just making a normal 3D printer that is available on the Internet. We are aiming to make 3D printers that can print with high precision. The (workers) required to work in the company (have) to be (experts). So, the company (provides) some extra training for the (workers) so that they become (experts). ”

Respondents R1 and R3 implied that the re-education of staff can be considered a challenge when utilizing 3D printing technology. The employers of Respondents R1 and R3 are serious about upgrading their employee education and skill levels. In order to produce biomedical products, employees need special skills, like additional information pertaining to the biocompatibility of materials, the process of producing 3D printed biomedical products and how to design these biomedical products. This is because these companies must closely follow certain product or industry specifications.

The demands and expectations of 3D printing technology are high. Therefore, engineering and technical skills are required for the successful deployment of a wide range of 3D printing technology, from product design, material, technology, and, lastly, data management. At the same time, successful engineers must be creative, resourceful, and ready to “figure things out” in an industry that continues to develop and evolve. Therefore, the re-education of staff can be considered a challenge in the utilization of 3D printing technology for biomedical products.

Apart from that, the materials for 3D printing are very costly. The cost of buying a 3D printing machine is one of the most significant cost elements involved in utilizing 3D printing technology in the manufacturing industry. The price of a 3D printer is very expensive, ranging from 116,000 USD to 232,000 USD. The price of the machine depends on the ability of the machine to produce a product with certain specifications. A lower price means lower print quality, materials, build size, and functionality.

“ Second, the price of this machine is very expensive. To start the project, (USD)116 thousand to 1 million is required. But now, the bio-printer that we bring is affordable, below (USD)232 thousand. So, we have a goal (that) in Malaysia all universities (should) have a bio-printer.” – R2

In conclusion, Respondents R2 and R3 agreed that the cost of machines is a challenge when utilizing 3D printing technology for biomedical products. The best 3D machines for the manufacturing industry are those that are reliable, easy to use and maintain, and that are capable of producing accurate and detailed prints. In addition, the 3D printing machine needs to be large enough for complex items and versatile enough to handle different materials. Conversely, the price of materials needed for producing 3D printed biomedical products is expensive because each biomaterial has specificic requirements in terms of material, mechanical and chemical properties, as well as cell-material interactions, processing methods, and the need for FDA approval [ 5 ]. Therefore, the cost of machines and materials used is a challenge when utilizing 3D printing technology for biomedical products.

Besides that, the size of the company does not affect the adoption of 3D printing technology for biomedical products. The assumption is that an increase in productivity is not due to the size of the organisation. According to Respondent 2:

“(The) size of (the) company (does) not affect the (utilization) of 3D printing technology. This is because the company only needs some experts to produce biomedical products.” –R2

In conclusion, the size of the company does not affect the adoption of 3D printing technology for biomedical products.

Next, the procedures and standards required for using 3D printing technology is also a challenge for the management of 3D printing technology companies. The procedures and standards required for using 3D printing technology is currently complicated. Each company also has its own standards when supplying medical products. For example, the medical products supplied to customers must be safe for human consumption. For industrial products, companies need to ensure that their product functions as per the requirements. Different products have different standards and uses different materials and processing methods. According to Respondent R2, the company also needs to apply for permission from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to invent and use 3D printing technology for producing biomedical products. According to Respondent R1:

“When providing services to customers, certain standards must be followed. We have standards when supplying medical products to customers. For example, the medical product supplied to customers must be safe for the patient. For industrial products, we need to ensure (that the) product functions well. Different products have different standards as well as the material and processing method used (employed).” – R1

Respondent R2 mentioned that:

“Many procedures need to (be undertaken) such as (the) need to apply (for) permission from ISO. After (obtaining) the permission from the ISO, we (will then) continue to produce the products.” –R2

Based on the collected data, two out of three respondents agreed that the procedures and standards are among the challenges in the utilization of 3D printing technology for manufacturing biomedical products.

Furthermore, cybersecurity is also a challenge in the management of 3D printing technology for biomedical products. According to Respondent R1, malicious cyber-attacks can affect the physical performance of 3D printing machines, the equipment, STL file and the component in the manufacturing system, which can cause a change in the shape, structural stiffness, natural frequency, and weight of the biomedical products. Respondent 3 also supported this statement when they said:

“When we run the production using 3D printing technology, a malicious input could come from an integrated connection layer in the form of a malicious real-time controlling command that can change the production design.” – R3

Hence, cybersecurity issue is another challenge to 3D printing technology used for manufacturing biomedical products. The sabotage can be executed remotely via internet access, which is ubiquitous in the 3D printing technology environment. The entire 3D printing technology data chain from design to manufacturing needs to be secured to maintain the integrity of both the digital data and the physical printed product when using 3D printing technology.

Marketing is also a new emerging challenge in the production of 3D printing technology. Data analysis shows that only two respondents implied that marketing is considered a challenge when utilizing 3D printing technology for producing biomedical products. They believe that, in Malaysia, the marketing of 3D printing technology for biomedical products is still in the infancy stage compared to Europe, the USA, or Singapore. In Europe and the USA, 3D printing is really in the mainstream and most of the medical divisions know about 3D printing. However, in Malaysia, there are not more than ten companies that apply 3D printing technology in their manufacturing businesses. Not surprisingly, not many Malaysians know of the existence of 3D printing technology in the production of biomedical products. This can be seen in the following statements:

“Marketing is also another challenge, especially in the Asian market. This is because in Europe and the USA, 3D printing is really in mainstream use and most of the medical divisions know about 3D printing. " – R1

Respondent R2 said that:

“When we joined some events and conferences, some people were clueless about 3D printing because they (have) never heard of the technology. And it is possible that most people still (do) not know about the existence of 3D printing technology for manufacturing biomedical products in Malaysia.” –R2

Simply put, Respondents R1 and R2 believed that the marketing of 3D printing technology for manufacturing biomedical products in Malaysia is still at the infancy stage compared to Europe, the USA, or even Singapore. This is because people in Malaysia are unfamiliar with the use of 3D printing technology for manufacturing biomedical products. Thus, marketing is one of the challenges when producing 3D printed biomedical products and selling them. Therefore, every company needs to draw up effective marketing strategies (promotions and advertisements), so that netizens are aware of the existence of 3D printing technology in Malaysia. There are no shortcuts in achieving the goal of the 3D printing industry through a proper marketing strategy. The management needs to be ready to invest a lot of time, patience, effort and finances towards this goal. When they pay attention to key elements of a good marketing strategy, it will be easier to develop an effective and logical plan that will lead to the successful adoption of 3D printing technology in the manufacturing industry.

Lastly, based on the transcribed data, another new challenge in utilizing 3D printing technology for manufacturing biomedical products is the patent and copyright issues. Patents protect 3D printed biomedical inventions such as new designs, processes, machines, or chemicals [ 105 ]. The central idea is that patents protect ideas, not just expressions of them. The main effect of patents is to give their holders the right to challenge any use of the invention by a third party. Meanwhile, a copyright is to protect the expression of ideas. Artistic works are generally considered as expressions of ideas; for example, books, songs, and computer programs [ 105 ]. The patent and copyright issue is one of the challenges that exists in all companies. Thus, if people were aware of the process to make the software or invention and copied it, it would be difficult to prove the original owner of the software or invention and that other people had copied it. A 3D printed biomedical product is designed using computer-aided drafting (CAD) software, which produces files that contain proprietary information. The theft or loss of these files could be disastrous to companies, potentially leading to digital sabotage or design theft.

“Yes! We faced (it). But, it (is) (mostly) (due) to the software when to make 3D printed biomedical products likes a leg. For example, a skilled hacker penetrated one of the remote sites' firewall and stole the technical design files. “Look-alike” products were then released to the market at a cheaper price. When this situation occurs, first, you need (to) make a report to (the) IPA (Intellectual Property Academy) and (say), “Ok, this is my invention. This is my product and I should have ownership, all right?” So, (it is the same) for software. Usually, if I make (a) software and then you also see the process that I used to make (the) software and you copy it, it is really hard to prove that (it) is my creation and (another person copied) my invention. (It is so), especially for software, because in (the) whole process of 3D printing, the software is very important for us. This is because we will start using CT or MRI, then convert the data into a 3D model and use the software for creating new things. So, software is our focus for IPA. So, your question on how important the software is, well the answer is Yes. It is very important to us.” –R1

Meanwhile, Respondent R2 mentioned that Malaysia is approximately three to five years behind in utilizing 3D printing technology, with many inventions having been already patented abroad. However, there are still innumerable opportunities for the company to patent its biomaterial products. For example in the case of a common biopolymer such as alginate, they cannot register any patents because other companies are very advanced and have already patented numerous products in this field.

Respondent R2 mentioned:

“ In terms of (patents), there are many (patents). Indeed, we (looked) at 2016–2017 abroad, many (inventions) (had) been (patented). In Malaysia, we are late, three years to five years only in 3D printing technology. There are still many more opportunities for us to patent our own biomaterials products. Like (these) (bio-cells) (while showing in glass bottles), they are proprietary or self-brewing, the alginate. We cannot make the patents because we are late. ”

Respondent R3 agreed with Respondents R1 and R2. In his company, the formulation of materials or the invention of new products is very important. Therefore, all formulations or inventions are protected by copyrights and patents. Conclusively, based on the collected data, all respondents alleged that patents and copyright issues are among the challenges of utilizing 3D printing technology for biomedical products. It is suggested that the government provide incentives or establish a subsidiary to reduce the burden of companies having to deal with patents and copyright issues.

This study found several new elements in the challenge of utilizing 3D printing technology for manufacturing biomedical products. Figure 3 provides an overview of the challenges faced when utilizing 3D printing technology for biomedical products.

Overview of the challenges of 3D printing technology for biomedical products in Malaysia.

6. Conclusions

In summary, the results show that in respect of processing and materials, there are eight challenges when utilizing 3D printing technology for manufacturing biomedical products, which are as follows:

• - selection of a suitable binder : various binders have varying effects on the product's biocompatibility, where the compatible one are the organic-based.
• - poor mechanical properties : the product should have adequate tensile and compress strength also flexible rigidity after printing process.
• - low dimensional accuracy : product fitting requires a precise design, the challenge is to overcome the shrinkage of the product during the curing and cooling process.
• - powder agglomeration limitations : the particulate powder must be distributed evenly before sintering to prevent agglomeration and low densification product.
• - nozzle size : appropriate nozzle size will determine the printed structure and design accuracy.
• - distribution of size : over or under-fit particles may cause defects on the finished products.
• - limited choice of materials : sources of raw materials for the construction of a similar and suitable product to human organs and tissues are still limited; and,
• - texture and colour similarity/dissimilarity with organs : customer demands are always beyond current capabilities, so they need to be aware of limitations.

These challenges were faced by the core players of the existing industry in 3D printing technology for biomedical products in Malaysia, which then arises another four significant processing and materials challenges as follows;

• - low lifespan of the materials : Inventory such as tracking records and storage of materials and product is crucial because most biomaterials have low lifespan, and expired compound reduces the quality of the product which makes the product brittle and causes cracking and discoloration.
• - customization of fit and design : the concept of a product's recyclable design is difficult as the product is designed to the size and function of certain patients and can not be used in other patients.
• - layer height: optimizing the best layer height is still dependent on multiple trials to check and find a solution that has been found as time consuming and costly.
• - build failed : loss of connectivity or buggy control performance on software-hardware to perform tasks, resulting in failure of network and access to the set framework.

Apart from this, in the management aspect, there are four challenges when utilizing 3D printing technology for manufacturing biomedical products, which are re-education of staff, high-priced products, and lack of guidelines, and cyber-security issues. The size of the business is removed from the list of challenges because it was discovered that the size of a company or organization does not affect printing productivity. Nonetheless, marketing, patents, and copyright were found to be new challenges.

Overall, this study is important for the biomedical manufacturing sector as it offers information about the use of 3D printing technology for manufacturing biomedical products in developing countries such as Malaysia. This study could be a guideline for new manufacturers, human resources and the management sector. For new companies intending to adopt this technology, the qualitative sharing experience from this study will provide an early insight into what the company will encounter. It is anticipated that the findings of this study will assist Malaysians to obtain concise information about the utilization of 3D printing technology in the manufacturing industry.

Tackling the newbie's readiness to develop and implement this technology is critical, as is the confidence of the customers to purchase the products. This paper highlighted the fact that, to manufacture medical product, 3D printing technology is safe and effective. Hence, this paper hopes that the challenges discussed will encourage and empower newbies, policy makers, and government sectors to carefully adopt this technology and respond to consumer trust and demand appropriately.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

N. Shahrubudin: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper.

P. Koshy, J. Alipal, M. H. A Kadir: Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper T. C. Lee: Conceived and designed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Funding statement

This work was supported by the Ministry of Higher Education and Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia for the financial support provided for this research through Research Grant Scheme, FRGS Vot K097 and Research Fund E15501, RMC UTHM.

Competing interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.