We’re getting the business out of the way first, then moving on to awards and rewards in this edition of 3D Printing News Briefs. CECIMO has expressed its approval of a new 3D printing nomenclature standard, and there’s a new design competition in town. Weerg announced the winner of its 3D Printing Project Award, and Formlabs is rewarding its loyal customers with a discount. Finally, a 3D printed Harry Potter statue flies high at a store in India.

CECIMO Welcomes New Classification Provision for 3D Printers

CECIMO, the European Association of the Machine Tool Industries, is glad to hear about the approval and introduction of a new product nomenclature standard, used by over 200 countries, for additive manufacturing systems. The nomenclature, known as Harmonized System and used by authorities to classify goods in international trade, is maintained by the World Customs Organisations (WCO). The classification code was first proposed by the EU on the basis of input from CECIMO, and will improve statistics collection on the international trade of AM machines by material used, in addition to promoting the inclusion of these systems in bilateral or multilateral trade deal talks around the world. The new code will go into use starting January 1, 2022.

“Standardization is of vital importance in the industrialization of AM. Work is progressing on standards on materials, processes and applications,” said Filip Geerts, Director General at CECIMO. “In addition to standardization, we are glad to have contributed to the inclusion of AM machines in the systematic list of commodities applied by most trading nations in the world. This action will fill another vacuum in the standards’ landscape, leading to greater official intelligence on AM machine market dynamics and, therefore, helping to draft more accurate strategies for the AM sector.”

Conserv Opened New Design Competition

Alabama tech startup Conserv, which builds sensor solutions to help places like museums, archives, and libraries preserve cultural heritage, is a big fan of 3D printing and rapid prototyping. Conserv has heard from its customers that they want to “minimize the visual disruption caused by things other than the art in a space,” which is why it’s decided to hold its own 3D design competition to find the next design iteration for its sensor platform. The prize for the winning design, which will be chosen by the startup’s own customers, is $5,000 cash.

“While sensors are necessary to ensure the integrity of a collection, they often look out of place, not in harmony with the carefully curated objects that people come to see,” the competition description states.

“How can we change that?  How can we push the art of sensor design further so it looks more like, well, art!  What does great look like in this space? How can we design a device that doesn’t look out of place in a gallery curated by the most discerning professionals while still retaining all of the features that fulfill demanding technical requirements?  Can we create an object that is unassuming and functional, designed to blend in, but at the same time elicits joy when it is noticed?”

Requirements include that the solution must be designed for wall mounting, with vents for air flow, to blend into a museum environment, and for a high volume manufacturing process, like injection molding. Entrants need to provide a design sketch or rendering and a description of how the design meets the requirements, and a 3D model file for a 3D printed prototype of the device, by May 17th. For other questions and details, email nmcminn@conserv.io.

Winner Announces for Weerg 3D Printing Project Award

Earlier this month, Italian 3D printing and CNC machining platform Weerg opened the second edition of its 3D Printing Project Award contest, which promotes creativity, experimentation culture, and innovation in design manufacturing. This week, Weerg announced that Benjamin Nenert, a designer and specialized technician for Porsche, is the winner of its 2019 3D Printing Project Award: a €500 Weerg voucher. Nenert, who lives in France, also manages his own vintage Porsche repair and refurbishment business, Ben Auto Design on top of his day job. His award-winning project is a component for a 1983 Porsche engine that he’s currently restoring.

“It is a very important component because it will allow you to extract more power from the engine by converting it to a more modern electronic management system. I could also have tried to modify the original part, but it would have taken a long time, with a very bad result for the performance I was aiming for,” Nenert explained. “The 3D-printed part has all the requirements I was looking for: perfect design, heat resistance up to 100 °C and sturdiness.”

Formlabs Offering Loyalty Discount to Customers

In a very smart move, Formlabs is wisely rewarding its loyal customers with a great discount if they’re interested in upgrading their Form 2 3D printer to the new Form 3 or Form 3L. The company explained that customers simply need to confirm the ownership of their own Form 2 by May 31st, 2019 in order to receive a €500 discount on the purchase of a Form 3 or Form 3L. Then they can add to their fleet of Formlabs systems; again, this is a good choice by Formlabs in order to keep its customers coming back for more.

To confirm your Form 2 and receive your loyalty discount, share an image of the serial name on the printer’s back panel in the format “AdjectiveAnimal.” You can either get in touch with a member of the company’s sales team, or submit the information online. You’ll either get your unique loyalty discount through an email within one business day, or the sales team will apply it to your purchase. Redeem the discount in the Formlabs online store, or contact the sales team, to buy your discounted Form 3 or Form 3L 3D printer.

STPL 3D Makes 3D Printed Harry Potter Statue

India-based rapid prototyping services company STPL 3D Printing (STPL3D) is continuing with its 3D printed statues of fictional characters. Not long after we heard about the 3D printed Spiderman statue the company made for a customer, another one of its clients requested a 5-foot 3D printed sculpture of Harry Potter for their store. STPL3D had just five days to transform the 2D images it was given into a detailed sculpture, and they got right to work. The company’s in-house designer divided the job into 25 smaller parts that would be easy to print, and once these were completed and post-processed, the team assembled the statue and delivered it to the client’s merchandise store. Using STPL3D’s technology and service, the client had a 40% reduced cost, 70% weight reduction, and saved nearly a month of time on the project.

“3D printing helps artists transform ideas into tangible works of art. Artists from creative and entertainment domains can truly unleash their imagination to create new and exciting objects. 3D printed art models aims to expand the horizons of design and foster a culture of aesthetic innovation,” said STPL3D’s CEO Rahul Gaywala.

Discuss these stories and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts in the comments below.

A large group of researchers came together to author Bioprinting in Ophthalmology: Current Advances and Future Pathways, published recently regarding their findings on bioprinting within the field of ophthalmology. While they understand the promise 3D printing with cells has in so many applications, there is serious potential for ‘highly delicate organs’ like the eyes and the heart. Here, they review some of the strides made in bioprinting over the past 20 years, and specifically in ophthalmology.

As the researchers point out, over 30 percent of people around the world have visual impairment issues of some kind. Because the eye presents such an easy access point, however, doctors have excellent access for performing medical procedures and supplying implants. This means that the eyes are also very conducive to treatments with bioprinting.

3D printing so far has been responsible for a wide range of developments in optics, whether for lenses in smart phones, or a variety of different printing systems to include those for fabricating models of the eye for surgeons. Although bioprinting allows for tissue engineering and the potential for transplants, the benefits of 3D medical models alone are enormous as they give medical professionals access to visual aids for more accurate diagnoses, treatment, and education for both patients and their families.

Medical models of the eye also serve as invaluable training devices for procedures for medical students, and for surgeons who may be performing unique surgeries never attempted. They may even use the models in the operating room. Most of these models today are created with the 3D Systems Z650 printer.

(a) Schematic view of the cross-section of our physical model eye; (b) two printed parts provided main structure of the physical model eye; (c) use of the physical eye model for assessing the fundus range of the viewing system; (d–f) pictures of the angle bars photographed under 128D lens, 60D lens, and 60D lens with model eye tilt; (g–i) other three eye models printed and fabricated with different anterior chamber and total axial length.

The authors point out that because there are still so few ‘workable materials’ for ophthalmology in additive manufacturing, there is still substantial room for further innovation:

“The printing of artificial lenses, glaucoma valves and other medical implants developed in customized processes will be a reality in the future,” stated the authors.

“It is believed that printing of artificial lenses, glaucoma valves and other medical implants with customization and on-demand supply will be possible in the coming years. Further, numerous next generations ophthalmological products are likely to be benefited with this technology.”

Smart-phone technology, the impetus for many different applications today, also allows for an interesting ‘alternative use of 3D printing,’ as a variety of different devices can be attached to mobile phones for examination of areas like the ocular anterior segment, giving medical professionals easy access to detect conditions like cataracts, uveitis, ulcers, and other defects.

“These devices are more than ten times cheaper than standard ocular imaging devices,” state the authors.

(A) 3D printed retinal imaging adapter on a smartphone; (B) an image of a glaucomatous disc captured with the smartphone retinal imaging adapter; (C) an image of the same glaucomatous disc captured with a standard fundus camera; (D) 3D printed smartphone slit lamp microscope, (E) an image of a patient with a white cataract captured on a smartphone with the 3D printed slit lamp microscope.

Bioprinting systems for ophthalmology are still difficult to come by, due to the lack of suitable materials, mechanical limits, speed in production, and affordability; however, the researchers are convinced that because so many innovations are being continually presented, ‘the development of a fully functional artificial eye’ is imminent.

“Overall, it can be concluded from the research endeavors in 3D printing in ophthalmology that this technology has the potential to improve the treatments of vision impaired patient by helping the doctors in performing risky surgery,” concluded the researchers. “The only need for this is to explore the innovative trends in customization of the medical devices which are highly desirable in-terms of market demand. Ultimately, the printed ophthalmological devices can heal the poor vision and other ocular diseases.”

Bioprinting continues to make steady impacts in the medical field, and while so many fascinating innovations have been made in ophthalmology, from orbital implants to prosthetic eyes, researchers continue to branch out into nearly every area of human health with medical models, and a variety of other implants and devices to change patient’s lives around the globe. Find out more about bioprinting efforts in ophthalmology here.

[Source / Images:

]

3D printed rocket manufacturer Relativity Space, based in Los Angeles and backed by VC funding, signed its first public, multi-year commercial contract with satellite services vendor Telesat earlier this month. Now the company, which has grown from from 14 to 83 employees in the last year, has announced its second deal, this time with Thai satellite and space technology company mu Space. Together, the two will launch a satellite on Relativity’s Terran 1 rocket to Low Earth Orbit (LEO).

The Terran 1, which features a flexible architecture, was fabricated using Relativity’s patented technology platform on its giant Stargate 3D printer, which features 18-foot-tall robotic arms that use lasers to melt metal wire and can help lower the part count of a typical rocket from 100,000 to just 1,000. By utilizing Relativity’s technology in this new aerospace partnership, mu Space can achieve a faster, less expensive, and more reliable launch, which will help usher in a transformation in the satellite launch and services industry in the US and Asia-Pacific.

“mu Space is accelerating space technology development in Asia, and we consider the moon as the next explorable body in space beyond Earth. Relativity has the vision, team, and technology to deliver exceptional advantages in launching mu Space’s payloads, and supporting our goal of creating an interplanetary society in the future,” said mu Space’s CEO and Founder James Yenbamroong.

mu Space was founded just two years ago in Thailand, and is on a mission to lead the development of space technology, as well as encourage new space investments in the APAC region. The company is also working on developing both LEO and Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) satellite and space technologies that can hopefully increase the adoption of Internet of Things (IoT) devices in smart cities. With plans to launch its own satellite in 2021, mu Space’s LEO satellite will launch on the Terran 1 rocket in 2022 as a primary, dedicated payload.

“We’re excited to partner with mu Space, a disruptive innovator in the Asia-Pacific region, to launch their satellite and space technologies with our 3D printed Terran 1 rocket. We look forward to collaborating to strengthen the U.S. and Asia-Pacific space economy, and to advancing the future of humanity in space together with James and the entire mu Space team,” stated Tim Ellis, CEO and Co-Founder of Relativity.

L-r: mu Space CEO & Founder James Yenbamroong and Relativity Space CEO & Founder Tim Ellis stand in front of Relativity’s metal Stargate 3D printer – the largest of its kind.

Relativity, which is the first autonomous rocket factory and launch services leader for satellite constellations, has big plans to build humanity’s future in space, focusing first on rockets. Its unique platform vertically integrates 3D autonomous metal manufacturing technology, machine learning, software, and intelligent robotics to rapidly build 3D printed rockets, like the Terran 1, which will be the first rocket launched by the startup. Because the Terran 1 has far less parts and a simpler supply chain than traditional rockets, Relativity plans to build the flight-ready rocket, from raw material, in less than 60 days.

The startup is expanding its infrastructure by fourfold this year, with over 350,000 square feet of launch, operations, production, and testing facilities; this last includes securing a polar orbit-capable launch site. Adding to its list of major government partnerships, which includes membership on the National Space Council that advises the White House and a two-decade, exclusive-use Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA) agreement at the NASA Stennis Space Center E4 test complex, Relativity recently became the first VC-backed company to gain a launch site Right of Entry from the US Air Force at Cape Canaveral Launch Complex-16.

Relativity’s new partnership with mu Space solidifies its growing leadership in the global satellite launch services industry, and also expands the shared vision between the two companies of building the future of the human race beyond our planet – mu Space wants to keep developing space technologies for safer lunar missions in order enable a moon settlement in the next decade, while Relativity wants to 3D print the first rocket on Mars and build an interplanetary society.

The first orbital test launch of Relativity’s Terran 1 rocket is currently on track to take place at the end of the year 2020.

Discuss this story and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts in the Facebook comments below.

[Images: Relativity Space]

UK researchers continue to explore the benefits of creating new composites for 3D printing. Here, they discuss their findings regarding carbon composites used in SLA 3D printing and material extrusion, outlined in their recently published paper, ‘Fabrication of the continuous carbon fiber reinforced plastic composites by additive manufacturing.’

As authors Y. Lu, G.K. Poh, A. Gleadall, L.G. Zhao, and X. Han explain, composites are often created due to a need for stronger mechanical properties in 3D printed and additive manufactured parts. Carbon is a material relied on especially in applications like the automobile industry and aerospace because of incredible strength, but also the potential for making lightweight parts that may not have been possible previously.

The authors point out that while carbon fiber is useful for strengthening mechanical properties, it often still displays limited strength in tensile testing. This is due to a lack of control over short fibers, resulting in more unpredictable orientation and alignment during 3D printing. Beyond that, inferior bonding of the composite fibers and the matrix may also cause a lack of integrity in structures. In testing, the researchers used continuous-fiber-reinforced composites (CFRCs) in material extrusion and SLA processes.

Testing was performed through physical evaluation of the mechanical properties, along with examination by microscope. Samples were created specifically for tensile testing, with Accura60 resin used for SLA 3D printing (with carbon fiber filament obtained from Markforged) and nylon and carbon fiber filament, also supplied by Markforged, used for material extrusion on a MarkTwo 3D printer. Tensile tests were then completed on an Instron 3369 machine with a 50 kN load cell, and then analyzed further through a Primotech microscope, with the fiber-matrix interface examined via a Hitachi TM3030 Tabletop scanning electron microscope.

ASTM D638-02a Tensile test specimen sample geometry (dimensions in mm).

Sample code and material specification

“The increase of elastic modulus after embedding carbon fiber is 110.49% and 23.69% for ME and SLA based composite samples, respectively. Compared with theoretical result, experimental results demonstrated a 73.3% lower tensile modulus for ME samples and a 42.06% lower tensile modulus for SLA samples,” reported the authors. “The microscopic analysis suggested a presence of porosity at the fibre-matrix interface of the composite specimens produced by both SLA and ME while SLA samples have a less percentage of porosity.”

(a) 2D plane view of fibre distribution of ME-C sample; (b) Cross Section view of SLA-C matrix sample

While the elastic modulus was increased substantially with carbon fiber, the authors pointed out that it also significantly reduced elongation at break, due to a lower elongation-to-break—in comparison to the use of all nylon material. Because of this, the sample was brittle. They also noticed high porosity due to voids in the fiber/matrix layers—leading to decreased mechanical performance. It was noted that this could be due to inferior infill density, with printed fibers not being even distributed during 3D printing—leading to ‘compromised’ tensile properties.

“Compared with theoretical result, experimental results demonstrated a 73.3% lower tensile modulus for ME samples and a 42.06% lower tensile modulus for SLA samples. The microscopic analysis suggested a presence of porosity at the fibre-matrix interface of the composite specimens produced by both SLA and ME while SLA samples have a less percentage of porosity,” stated the researchers.

Fracture sections of ME-C samples (a and b) and SLA-C samples (c and d)

“Compared to commercially available composite ME based machine, SLA technology showed promising results for composite manufacturing, and further investigation is ongoing,” concluded the researchers.

One of the most fascinating parts of 3D printing is not only the innovations that spring forth from the technology continually, but also the ongoing refinements in machines and materials. And while one type of plastic or metal may be suitable for a range of applications, users often find that by adding another material or element, they can strengthen or stabilize parts further, whether in using metals like titanium or a mixture of graphene and alginate, or recycling wood into 3D printed composites. What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

[Source / Images: ‘

]

Hierarchical structural organization of bone (X. Wang et al., 2016).

In ‘Bone Regeneration on Implants of Titanium Alloys Produced By Laser Powder Bed Fusion: A Review,” the authors examine the continued potential for titanium in bioprinting, as this metal continues to progress in use for the medical field. Pointing out that ‘extensive work’ has been performed in this area, the authors take time to pinpoint areas open for future work, with an emphasis on bone regeneration.

Because titanium has been researched so thoroughly and is in such wide use today, the authors point out it is no secret that these types of metal implants can be produced successfully in 3D printing and additive manufacturing—with laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) offering the greatest benefits. The reviewers are specifically interested in Ti and Ti6Al4V implants, and details required for osseointegration.

Bone regeneration processes occurring due to bone fracture in absence of an
implant: (a) break event followed by blood clot formation, (b) new blood vessels formed,
followed by osteoinduction – differentiation of cells into osteoblasts and formation of ectopic
bone, (c) osteogenesis or formation of new bone through osteoinduction, creating new
trabecular and cortical bone; (d) completed process and healed fracture (Hasan et al., 2018).

Bone regeneration occurs through the following:

• Osteogenesis – bone formation.
• Osteoinduction – undifferentiated mesenchymal cells are transformed into osteoblasts; ectopic bone is formed in vivo.
• Osteoconduction – bone growth on bio-inert matrices, allowing for new cell colonization.

The bone healing process can be extensive too, beginning with a blood clot forming around the fracture, then new blood vessels forming, new bone formation, and then ‘the remodeling phase,’ which can even take years. For titanium alloys, the reviewers point out that fabrication of a porous structure causes such a reduction of the elastic modulus that the implant becomes even more like the bone.

“If this is not the case, the stress-shielding effect causes bone loss and loosening of the implant and failure of the process,” state the researchers. “Besides lowering the elastic modulus, the porous nature allows for bone ingrowth into the structure, further strengthening the bond between implant and existing bone.”

Nutrients must be carried to areas where bone is expected to grow, and there must be enough space for vascularization to occur, with pore spaces that are exactly the right size.

One of the more interesting topics pertains to analysis of biomaterial scaffolds, with a variety of different materials promoting bone growth, such as:

• Ceramics
• Metals
• Polymers
• Composites

Variation of trabecular bone structure by location, in this example from human
femur, 26-year-old male

Each of these different materials can also have different impacts on bone regeneration.

“Thus, similar approaches to all materials, porosity and size of the pores cannot be suggested as a general guide. Also loaded/unloaded implants can require different voids in terms of volume and shape,” state the reviewers.

Implants require the following:

• Biocompatibility
• Suitable surface topology
• Proliferation and differentiation
• High porosity providing cell ingrowth and transport of nutrients
• Reliable mechanical properties

Samples created through LPBF can show a wide range of variances due to building strategy, contour, overhangs, and scanning procedures. Manufacturing of lattices brings challenges such as limits in production, a host of possible defects, and issues with size.

Cell adhesion is divided into three different stages, with attachment impacted by factors such as surface structure, texture, wetting, chemical composition, and charge at physiologic pH of implant surface.

“For in vitro studies, 3D cell setup looks more preferable in terms of evaluation of pore size and shape for bone growth,” concluded the reviewers. “For in vivo studies, long-term observation needs with analysis not only of bone ingrowth into the implant, but also analysis of surrounding bone and tissues should be done.”

As 3D printing with metal takes off, titanium is one of the most popular materials, used for innovations like maxillofacial implants, brake components for Bugatti, and even veterinary implants. And that is just one type of metal powder being used, as industrial users seek stronger, more lightweight parts available through additive manufacturing. What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

Rough surfaces on the inside of a lattice produced by LPBF – inside view by
microCT, data from (du Plessis et al., 2018d).

[Source / Images:

Over the last several years, 3D printers that use conveyor belts as limitless build platforms have been growing more popular. In 2017, Italian company Robot Factory launched its own FFF version, called Sliding-3D, which can help companies achieve more sustainable manufacturing processes with its 45° extruder and uninterrupted 3D printing. Now, Robot Factory is introducing a new version of the 3D printer, called Sliding-3D Plus because it can print with more technologically advanced, high-performance materials at high temperatures.

The new Sliding-3D Plus was developed for maximum performance 3D printing of materials, like Ultem (PEI), Thermec, PPS, PEEK, and carbon fiber, that require extrusion temperatures between 280 °C and 480 °C. The company is now offering its professional Sliding-3D system in two different version that still offer the same main features but are, as Robot Factory puts it, “characterized by different arrangements.”

VIDEO

First things first…because of Sliding-3D’s infinite print bed, large objects and multiple parts in a series can be fabricated on the system. Additionally, this conveyor belt bed ensures an uninterrupted work cycle – any time a print is completed, a new one will automatically begin. The moving bed sends the print forward until it detaches itself upon reaching the front roller, falling into a waiting collection container below.

The Sliding-3D Standard uses a mounted extruder block which supports temperatures up to 280°C, which works for more common materials like HIPS, nylon, PETG, PLA, and TPU. But the new Sliding-3D Plus has an extruder block that comes with a mounted Type K – Class I thermocouple, which allows the nozzle to support temperatures up to 480°C.

Robot Factory explained, “In the Sliding 3D Plus version the extruder cooling system was upgraded and the quick nozzle changed system was adopted. Furthermore, in the Plus version the belt is made with new materials that can withstand temperatures on the heated bed up to over 130 °C.”

There are a few other differences between the Sliding-3D Standard and Plus versions, including the heating block: it’s made of aluminum for the Standard, but a different material for the Plus. Two 40 x 10 fans make up the extruder cooling system for the Standard, while the Plus has two 40 x 20 fans. Finally, a socket wrench is needed to change the nozzles out for the Sliding-3D Standard, but the Sliding-3D Plus comes with a quick nozzle complete change system.

Now on to the similarities – both versions have the same build volume of 410 x 380 x ∞ (endless) mm and the same 36 kg weight, with an external PAD control device. Each one has a 0.4 mm nozzle for fine details and a 0.6 mm one for larger, high speed prints. Print jobs can be controlled with an SD card, and customers can also request an additional PAD that has an LCD color touchscreen, WiFi, and a USB port. Customers can also get the OctoPrint system to remotely manage, and extend, printer control.

Robot Factory’s high quality Sliding-3D systems are strong and stable because of their aluminum structural profiles and guides made of stainless steel with double ball bearing carriage, which ensures high precision. Sliding-3D uses the Simplify3D software suite, which provides an axis translation program to manage the inclination of the system’s 45° 3D printing layers and the serialization of the printing jobs.

Because of this print angle, Sliding-3D can offer some unique advantages when compared to more conventional systems, such as the layers providing more rigidity to the 3D printed model due to an increase on the internal forces between each layer. Surface quality is not negatively affected as there are no contour lines on the curved surfaces, and because minimally experienced users can exploit a model’s self-supporting corner during the design phase, no support structures are necessary for overhangs, which saves time, money, material, and energy consumption.

Because support structures aren’t necessary, this reduces the environmental impact of Sliding-3D systems – making them more eco-friendly.

Sliding-3D provides good adhesion, as its print beds are made with a special composite material that doesn’t require the use of any glues or adhesive sprays. This material actually prevents model detachment during 3D printing, and “favors the detachment at the end.” The bed is also heated, which helps improve print quality by preventing warping.

While the Standard and Plus versions of the Sliding-3D printer have differently sized fans in their extruder cooling system, the double fans in each create an air flow that perfectly cools the extruder and keeps the nozzle at its maximum temperature. Upon request, the systems can also be equipped with a protective BOX, made of transparent polycarbonate and aluminum profiles, for the kind of controlled temperature environment that’s needed when you’re dealing with advanced materials.

Robot Factory’s Sliding-3D systems don’t require a lot of maintenance to achieve good results, other than cleaning the print nozzles and maintaining a good distance between the nozzle and the moving print bed.

The Sliding-3D systems, both the Standard and the Plus, can be used to make 3D models with high stability and quality in many industries. Because they can print large objects as well as multiple parts in a series, the 3D printers can fabricate everything from customized objects, functional prototypes, and and medical aids to design check parts, manufacturing aids, and 3D models in one-to-one scale for developing assembly processes.

Discuss this story and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts in the Facebook comments below.

[Images: Robot Factory]

As we mature as an industry standardization, advocacy, legal issues, regulatory issues and challenges beyond our current expertise lie at our horizon. We will at one point be blamed for something horrible and we will also face some regulatory pressure. At this moment periodic knee jerk legislation via PR is being foisted upon us. Who will help spread the truth about 3D printing and who will do advocacy on our behalf? One organization that has been growing steadily is Flam3D. Initially funded to promote the 3D printing industry in Flanders it has spread throughout Belgium and the Netherlands to connect and educate 3D printing businesses. Present at events, connecting people and bringing together information and companies Flam3D may just be that organization that connects us.

©Matthias Van Oost

What is Flam3D?

Flam3D is a network association for and by companies and research institutes active in the Additive Manufacturing Supply Chain and Ecosystem. It’s a demand-driven, bottom-up initiative now gathering over 100 members in the Netherlands and Flanders. We unite, represent and support, we connect and disseminate. Nowadays, I suppose you’d call it NAAAS – Networking & Advocacy-As A Service.

How are you funded?

Our deliberate choice to not play an active role in the AM supply chain makes it impossible for us to develop any real business. And that’s a good thing. As we say it: we don’t sell, we don’t produce, we don’t do research: our members do. Financially not the easiest choice, but we’re supported by membership fees and the Flemish Government. In view of the increasing success of the organisation, we’re looking for additional sources for funding in order to be able to offer a stable Return on Investment for our members. And to continue working on the dozens of ideas generated by our members.

What do you hope to achieve?

As most organisations, we should aim at making ourselves obsolete: when there’s no need for information on AM any more, when there are no more common interests to defend, when all children in school have AM in their curricula, we will have succeeded. I suppose we won’t be jobless any time soon though.

In the meantime: we aim for more growth of Additive Manufacturing in general, and for our members in particular. More than half of our members report extra business through their membership of Flam3D – that’s a prime “Performance Indicator” for us.

What events do you organize?

Networking and matchmaking in all kinds of disguises. The main aim remains the same: how do we get people to consider AM – and in some cases to reconsider it. You can name it dissemination events, information sessions, networking evenings, conferences, symposia, etc… but the name is just depending on the audience and their expectations.

What is holding companies back from adopting 3D Printing?

If you can demonstrate the Return on Investment, the value of the technology: nothing. Obviously, there are the usual excuses or reasons: time, money, complexity of the technology, steep learning curve required, reluctance to change, etc… But does it really matter? We think it doesn’t: as soon as the automotive sector, for example, was convinced of the potential, there wasn’t any valid reason not to start implementing AM. It’s a sales job, really, yet we’re not selling sand in the desert. We’re selling cars when some people are still asking for faster horses.

Now it seems that in order to do well companies have to master the boring stuff: ISO, compliance, accounting. Would you agree?

They’d better. I’d say it’s perhaps possible to achieve major growth without looking at “the boring stuff”. But in order to stay relevant, you’ll have to master these issues. For one reason: AM is still mainly relevant in high-tech sectors: medical, aerospace, automotive – that’s not the type of sectors where you can ignore regulations, rules and compliance. Nowadays the regulatory landscape forces any business to seriously consider this.

Where is our technology going?

Towards a standard manufacturing technology. It will all take quite a while – getting the standards right, knowing which technology to use for which application, etc. But in the end, a number of AM-technologies will be standard manufacturing practice.

So far we’ve done really well without government involvement, should we engage governments more?

Yes. But…
We should tell them (even more) what the playground looks like and explain the rules of this new game: what is the potential in medical applications? How can it support greener economies? Where should they aim?
We should also sell 3D-printing to them: what’s in it for them? A lot, in my perspective. To put it negatively: a government that doesn’t engage in new technologies will end up with a less competitive industry and economy.

However, I don’t intend to say to governments should start handing out subsidies and funding. And as it seems to be impossible to define what a good subsidy looks like, I’d say: on the contrary. Rather, they could create “ponds” for the ecosystem to develop: regulatory and tax shelter options where innovations get chances. They could also speed up the process of renewing outdated laws and regulations.

Lastly, governments could have a huge impact on education; I really can’t understand why this isn’t a matter of months rather than years, or why we even need to promote the idea.

Why should I become a member? What will you do for me?

There’s only one reason to become a member: if you see added value for yourself. Obviously we have a standard offer to our members – basically consisting of internal networking (between members), external networking (from members to potential users) and “other” (in which we help on our members’ marketing and communications, we work on education, insurance, discounts for members, etc).
We don’t exclude future expansion of our organisation, but at this moment, we’re targeting Flanders and the Netherlands only. Therefore, we have little to offer to companies and organisations outside this region; we rather cooperate with them then seeing them as potential members. We have, for example, found contacts for international projects, resellers for some printer providers, etc.

We have a unique model. As said earlier: we’re not taking a position inside the ecosystem. And we cooperate: we don’t duplicate or undermine efforts of other organisations, rather, we will look at potential win-win situations. That’s our strength and offers us an exceptional advantage.

Membership fees depend on the number of employees – it ranges from € 250 to € 2.500 and all details are available on our website. We didn’t want an “exclusive” club of a few wealthy companies, but rather a broad base of different specialties and types, in order to stimulate interaction.

With over 1.3 million men and women on active duty and more than 450,000 of them stationed overseas, some of them deployed to conflict zones like Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria, and 20 million U.S. veterans, it’s no wonder the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is looking for ways to meet the medical, surgical and quality-of-life needs of America’s patriots. Some of their newest programs provide treatment for traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress, suicide prevention and women veteran services, and in the past few years the VA has opened outpatient clinics, and established telemedicine, medical research and innovation to improve the lives of a diverse veteran population. One of their most promising ventures is a partnership with GE Healthcare to accelerate the use of 3D imaging in healthcare. As part of their research agreement, GE Healthcare provides the software and work stations, and the VA’s Puget Sound Health Care System provides feedback to the company on the use and results of the technology. In the past, the VA has used 3D software that wasn’t designed for medical use. Now, however, GE will provide software specifically designed for the medical field.

Together, VA and GE Healthcare will work to reduce the time it takes for radiologists to create 3D printed models and prosthetics from hours to minutes, accelerate the identification of new imaging approaches, techniques, needed materials and post processing steps to enhance the health of the nation’s veterans. Through this partnership, GE will be able to help clinicians explore many different opportunities to use additive manufacturing across care areas, partnering with the VA’s innovation team, already engaged with printer manufacturers. As a company offering diagnostic imaging modalities, advanced visualization products, and in partnership with GE Additive metal printers and materials, GE Healthcare is uniquely positioned to support the VA’s investigations across the image-to-print workflow.  

Building on its 3D printing network, VA Puget Sound and the Veterans Health Administration Innovators Network integrate GE Healthcare’s advanced visualization AW VolumeShare workstations with 3D printing software across its facilities in Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Cleveland and Salt Lake City. The AW Server is a medical software system that allows multiple users to remotely access AW applications from compatible computers on a network. The system allows networking, selection, processing and filming of multimodality DICOM images. VA has started to use AW VolumeShare 7 last november, a multi-modality image review, comparison, and processing workstation with simplicity and power at its core, featuring 64-bit technology that allows processing of up to 5K images in a single dataset.

VIDEO

3DPrint.com spoke to Colin Holmes, Senior Director, Additive & Visualization at GE Healthcare, about the advantages of working with GE’s Advanced Visualization Workstations. The expert in application of high performance computing infrastructures to medical imaging said that “using the AW VolumeShare 7 workstations, VA radiologists specializing in cardiology, oncology, orthopaedics and general radiology can quickly produce and critique models from patient studies as part of their normal clinical tasks.” According to Holmes, “as these radiologists are full-time practitioners, efficiency improvements with AW will allow them to spend more time focused on patient care, guided by 3D printing outputs, and less time on the labor-intensive process of producing 3D models.”

VA Puget Sound radiologist and the VHA 3D Printing Advisory Committee chair, Beth Ripley, is quite eager to join forces with GE Healthcare, although the VA has been using 3D printing for a while, the new software should save time and make the technology more accessible. Last year she said that “for most radiologists, 3D images are limited to reconstructions on a computer screen, so by harnessing the power of 3D printing with a rich data set, we are able to pull images out of the screen and into our hands, allowing us to interact with the data in a deeper way to fuel innovative, personalized care based on the unique needs of each of our patients.”

A printed knee achieved using GE’s AW VolumeShare to accelerate the 3D printing process (Image: GE Healthcare)

“Typically imaging information is most fully understood by the radiologist, who combines the patient’s medical history with imaging results interpreted through the lens of years of radiology-specific training to recreate in his mind’s eye the full anatomy. Now, the critical information held within the medical imagery can be expressed physically, augmented with colour or scaled as needed. Physical models allow the surgeons, who need to combine the medical imagery with their view of the patient in the operating room, to better contextualize and share their understanding and decisions with the full team. While, patients can better understand a disease, express questions and make more informed decisions when they can interact with the models rather than having to deal with complex verbal descriptions best suited to those with advanced medical education,” described Holmes.

VA Puget Sound Health Care System radiologist, Beth Ripley, perform a quality check on a model of a kidney with a cancerous tumor

At this phase of their project, the VA teams working with AW VolumeShare 7 technology are using polymer printers that come from other companies to make models to explore their impact on surgical planning, resident teaching and training, and patient education. The VA operates one of the largest health care systems in the world and provides training for a majority of America’s medical, nursing and allied health professionals, roughly 60% of all medical residents obtain a portion of their training at VA hospitals. The VA health care system has grown from 54 hospitals in 1930 to 1,600 health care facilities today, including 144 VA Medical Centers and 1,232 outpatient sites of care. As the largest integrated health care system in the country, the VA not only cares for U.S. Veterans, but can advance change and positively disrupt the way America delivers health care.

The VA has been using 3D printing for some years now. From developing a 3D printed artificial lung that could help treat veterans affected by lung disease at VA Ann Arbor Health Care System, to reproducing near-exact replicas of body parts for Veterans using any of the five Stratasys 3D printers at VA hospitals in Seattle, Albuquerque, San Antonio, Boston and Orlando. Stratasys even went a step further and introduced AM job training and certification initiatives for the military veterans at San Diego.

A printed baby heart achieved using GE’s AW VolumeShare to accelerate the 3D printing process (Image: GE Healthcare)

GE Healthcare, made $17 billion in revenues last year and is one of the world’s top three med-tech companies by size. It has the world’s largest installed base in imaging, mobile diagnostics and monitoring, with over 4 million systems in use worldwide and a leading portfolio of contrast media and nuclear medicine agents that enhance the acuity of diagnostic imaging systems, these pharmaceutical diagnostics are used in three patients every second around the world. 

“We have been on our Additive Journey for nearly six years, and a lot of our early investments into additive technology and people were focused on printing polymer structures which fit well in the medical model printing space.  Over time we have been partnering with our Imaging teams to further accelerate the process to go from a medical image scan to a printed medical model,” described Holmes. Additive manufacturing is an evolving tool across the GE spectrum, from providing optimizations and innovation for parts in their leading imaging systems to new ways to explore, learn and share understanding of the data they generate.

So, how do we expect hospitals and medical research facilities -like VA Puget- will advance patient healthcare into the next decade? According to Holmes, leading research and teaching hospitals are almost all engaged in early work to incorporate additive manufacturing into their programs, from basic science to enhanced education, combined with AR and VR, to new diagnostic and therapeutic tools. “As healthcare begins to benefit from the fourth wave of industrialization, these new combined digital and manufacturing approaches are tremendously exciting as enablers and accelerators of much broader access to current healthcare standards worldwide,” he revealed.

Considering this is an investigation in early stages and there are still no quantified outcomes, only time will tell the degree to which this will improve the lives of over 110,000 veterans across the nine facilities of VA Puget Sound in the Pacific Northwest. However, it is safe to say that 3D printing technology is already improving patient experience, reducing treatment time and decreasing the cost of care for the millions of veterans in the United States, as well as patients worldwide. Most doctors are starting to see the benefits of moving from flat layered images to the replicated organic structures they will encounter in the operating room, and patients can understand a 3D print much better than a CT or an MRI scan. Right now, only about 3% of hospitals and research institutions have 3D printing capabilities on site, but at the rate it has advanced in the last couple of years we can expect a future widening use of the technology.

Usually when we think of robots in everyday life, it’s something anthropomorphic, maybe a cross between C-3PO and Rosie the robot maid from The Jetsons.

A continuum segment with a soft ‘hinge’ between each pair of vertebrae, allowing for increased torsional rigidity (Image: University of Leeds)

But robots don’t always represent the human form, and some kinds are never depicted in pop culture. Take continuum robots, who have found work in the aerospace industry, robotic surgery, and bomb disposal. Also called snake-arm robots, these slender machines can bend in smooth curves with all or most of their bodies.

These octopus-esque arms are usually mobilized by cables that generate force from the base of the limb that is then transferred up to different attachment points throughout the arm. This gives the robot the mobility and torque needed to move and twist. All of this is powered by electric motor actuators, which offer a high degree of control as well.

One challenge with these snakebots is that certain designs (like those with the actuators located in curved section) provide flexibility and torsion at the expense of strength and speed. This lack of rigidity is one of the main limitations in developing stronger and sturdier robotic lifting arms.

Solutions to this issue using precision engineering are costly, something a team of researchers at the University of Leeds is hoping to mitigate with 3D printing.

The Leeds’ Team’s Design

Motor, spool, and interlocking vertebrae arrangements for the tested segment designs. (Image: University of Leeds)

In a recent study, the researchers’ goal was to create a 3D-printed continuum robot segment with wide utility. To give stronger torsional rigidity, they opted to use of equally-spaced ‘vertebrae’ segments along a continuous flexible backbone (like in a standard serpentine robot). These segments help guide four tendons that move the arm but can also interlock with one another to generate rigidity.

Thanks to 3D printing, iterations on different versions of designs could be printed quickly. The segments housing each vertebrae segment printed pre-assembled with a Stratasys Objet1000 multi-material printer. Tango+ material comprised the soft, flexible backbone and more rigid Vero material made up the vertebrae themselves. To actually hold things, the design had a centralized bore that provided suction.

A Test of Strength

The segment testing mount to which increasing weights were added to the tip. (Image: University of Leeds)

The team settled on two designs to test for measuring lifting capabilities.

To test the arms’ individual segments, each was mounted horizontally to said rig. The tests began from two distinct starting positions: one from completely vertical, which activated one of the arm’s motors; and another rotated 45 degrees vertically which activated both motors. The test started from the segment’s lowest limit of motion, with the weight lifted vertically as high as possible.

At its best, the team’s V 1.2 design that engaged both motors was able to carry a max payload of 1300g (1.3kg/2.86lbs). For this configuration, the average speed under max payload was 10 degrees per second. The interlocking vertebrae design’s performance was also encouraging as it performed predictably under load.

Results from the torsional lifting test on four different segment configurations

While 1.3 kilos might seem like a paltry amount compared to what conventionally-made industrial robots can do, this could be the first step toward replacing those with 3D printed ones that are technically superior.

To get to that point, the Leeds team is looking to connect these individual segments into an even more capable working arm. No word on when they’ll get to testing a ‘dusting the furniture’ motion.

Discuss this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below.

[Source: WhiteRose]

At the University of Amsterdam, researchers may be seriously impacting reconstructive dentistry with a new process for strengthening the alveolar ridge after tooth loss or other more significant health issues. In ‘Marginal and internal fit of 3D printed resin graft substitutes mimicking alveolar ridge augmentation: An in vitro pilot study,’ authors C. C. Stoop, K. Chatzivasileiou, W. E. R. Berkhout, and D. Wismeijer explain a new design they have engineered for bone regeneration with 3D printed grafts.

As is so often the case with 3D printing, the key is in customization—allowing for patient-specific treatment with a graft meant to apply to both horizontal and vertical augmentation of the atrophic alveolar ridge. With CT scans converted into data for creating completely customized grafts, treatment time is expected to be reduced and there is a greater chance for regeneration. This innovation accentuates the growing reliance of implants and prosthetics in resolving issues with appearance and chewing after tooth loss. Historically, dental implants can be challenging without the ability to customize extensively—and even with more patient-specific treatment, there are many obstacles that can come into play regarding successful implantation and regeneration.

Representative lateral views of virtual 3D models with small-defects.

Lateral views of virtual 3D models with large-defects.

(A) Frontal view of a CAD mandibular model. (B) Lateroinferior view of a CAD large mandibular graft. (C) Frontal view of the graft fitted on the recipient site of the mandible. (D) Frontal CBCT view of the fitted graft.

The amount of bone volume left plays a large role in success, along with the types of defects involved—whether they are due to gum disease, cysts or tumors, teeth being pulled, or trauma to the mouth or jaw. There is also a range of different categories for defects, with the worst scenario being both horizontal and vertical defects occurring simultaneously.

“In situations of major changes in both vertical and horizontal bone dimensions, the placement of dental implants without an augmentation procedure could be very complicated or even impossible,” state the researchers.

Guided bone regeneration is usually a long process, and surgeons rely on a mixture of both biological and mechanical properties. Autogenous bone blocks are often used in surgeries, with grafts secured on the ridge or in between areas of pedicled and internal cancellous bone. The researchers state that success often relies on integration of the blocks as well as how well graft edges are smoothed, their stability, and their shape:

“The ideal biomaterial should be customized to fit easily on or into the corresponding bone defect and to allow proper fixation,” state the researchers. “The optimal shape of the graft may come with multiple advantages in terms of: (A) Faster surgical procedures, (B) Better healing of the grafted site, (C) Reduced risk of peri- and post-operative complications, (D) Higher success rates of the bone augmentation procedure and (E) Higher patient satisfaction.”

Shaping of bone grafts can be complex and requires an experienced hand. Without the proper expertise, healing may be unsuccessful.

“For this reason, there is a clinical need for customized biomaterials shaped to fit the patient’s bone defects,” said the authors.

With the options available through CAD design, bone defects can be scrutinized more closely, and customized, accurate grafts can be created before surgery. The entire process is more streamlined, surgical procedures are faster, and the patient has a better experience all around.

Six patients from the clinic of Oral Implantology and Prosthetic Dentistry at the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA) were involved in the study, with the researchers evaluating cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) datasets from each, to be treated with implants and augmentation with bone blocks. Patients all presented as:

• Partially dentate
• Combined vertical and horizontal defect of the maxilla (three patients)
• Combined vertical and horizontal defect of the mandible (three patients)

3D reconstruction was completed for each patient’s jaw, with data imported into Meshmixer for design:

“The atrophic bone areas were defined separately for each jaw model in the edentulous part of the jaw. Because of the bone loss it is not possible to place an implant on this part of the jaw,” stated the researchers. “The customized grafts could be manually drawn directly on the surface of the 3D projects by fabricating the original shape of the jaw.”

The void interface set at 0mm between model and graft. The models (n = 6) were evenly divided in two groups, according to the number of missing teeth whether categorized as small defect or large defect. 3D printing was completed on a Form2 3D printer, with the following settings:

“Print resolution was set at 100 microns. To standardize the procedure, every graft and model was printed separately in the center of the build platform with a 135-degree build angle. The print supports were set on the external outline to prevent them interrupting the critical internal area. After printing, the objects were washed twice in two separate 90 percent isopropyl alcohol baths (10 min each) and were postcured for 30 minutes at 45° using a 405nm light box, according to the manufacturer’s protocol.”

The grafts were assessed in vitro, with each one serving as a match for the defect. The researchers state that large-defect grafts did not require any further refining, while small-defect grafts matched after some effort in manually smoothing undercuts. Results of the study were a success, supporting the idea that it is possible to both design and 3D print grafts for alveolar bone augmentation. The researchers state, however, that workflow for this process needs validation in a clinical setting; further, ‘proper vascularization’ must be ensured.

Materials must also be further analyzed for the following:

• Biocompatibility
• Osteoconductivity
• Surface porosity
• Surface chemistry
• Tissue bonding
• Material strength
• Degradation rate

“The marginal fit of the grafts was better than the internal fit, while the average void dimensions seemed to be correlated to the defect type of the graft. Further in vitro studies with 3D printable bone substitutes are needed for the validation of this digital workflow for alveolar bone augmentation,” concluded the researchers.

While 3D printing has permeated so many complex industrial applications, it may seem surprising to many that it could improve issues having to do with your teeth, mouth, and jaw, also—but just as the technology is becoming more affordable and accessible to others around the world, now so are better dental products and processes, including items like orthodontic aligners, removable partial dentures, and high-performance dental 3D printers available to labs.

Blue and orange colored volume of the void between model and graft.

[Source / Images: ‘

’]