Floating State Ornaments with Heart Cutout

While the official first day of winter isn’t actually until next Friday, December 21st, it’s certainly felt like winter here in southwest Ohio recently. For me, this means drinking hot chocolate, sleeping in flannel pajamas, donning mittens and a scarf every time I walk outside, scraping the frost off my windshield when I need to go somewhere, and asking my husband to spread pet-safe salt on the back porch steps so our elderly dog can get down to the yard to go to the bathroom without slipping and breaking his furry neck. But it also means hauling all of my Christmas decorations up from the basement and setting them out, as well as braving the crazy crowds at the mall to find the perfect Christmas gifts for everyone on my list.

Luckily, these last two – decorations and gifts – can be helped along through the use of 3D printing. If you have your own 3D printer at home, the best part of 3D printing during the holidays is not having to leave your house to take care of the essentials. Here at 3DPrint.com, we’re saving you the heavy lifting and compiling a list of holiday 3D prints to make from the comfort of your own home.

If you’re looking for the perfect festive decorations, there are many great 3D printable Christmas tree options out there, like this one from Cults3D user tanyaakinora or this version by Thingiverse user Tony_D, which prints without any supports. It also definitely wouldn’t be Christmas without some 3D printed ornaments; my favorites include this Christmas Ball by Cults3D user Luci, these Floating State Ornaments with Heart Cutout on Thingiverse by PenolopyBulnick, and this quick and simple 3D printable snowflake_04 found on MyMiniFactory.

“Printed in white PLA on highest quality setting using in Simplify3D, 10% infill,” wrote Rich Williams, who goes by Akronovation, about this last snowflake. “No supports required.”

Nativity scenes are also popular 3D printable decorations – check out this traditional set by MyMiniFactory user Stephen Bailey, or this more modern version, found on Thingiverse by user T-Maz and 3D printed at 70% infill.

Nativity Scene Modern

Advent calendars come in all shapes and sizes, and 3D printing makes it even easier to customize them. Case in point: this awesome Deathly Hallows Advent Calendar by Thingiverse user LoisG, who 3D printed the calendar on a Flashforge Creator Pro out of PLA Wood material.

“Due to the size I had to make the sides in 6 pieces and glue together,” LoisG wrote. “I used Gorilla Glue as the surface wasn’t flat enough to use Superglue.”

Deathly Hallows Advent Calendar

3D printing also helps when it comes to the more utilitarian aspects of the holiday season, like this Holiday Light Holder by Cults3D user BOLROD, these Christmas Tree Feet for a mini tree by Thingiverse user Almantle, and an ingenious Christmas Light Wreath Clip found on MyMiniFactory, created by user James DeRuvo.

“Had a few of the light clips on our Christmas wreath break this year,” DeRuvo wrote. “No idea where to buy them, so I whipped out my mobile phone, took a picture of the white one, converted it to a 3d model using Selva3d and Tinkercad, and five minutes later, I’m printing replacements! That’s what I what I love about 3D printing!”

It’s not Christmas without cookies, and what better way to make your dessert festive than by making some 3D printed cookie cutters?

MyMiniFactory user airin danielle shared this nice cookie snow flex cutter design, and TeamOlivia posted an variety of 3D printable designs in this Christmas Cookie Cutter Set, which includes Santa, a reindeer, a Christmas tree, and a present with a bow on top.

“All of them were designed so that they could be decorated very easily (if that is your preference) or have room for something more detailed,” TeamOlivia wrote.

Of course, it’s a big world out there, and not everyone celebrates Christmas. On Thingiverse, I found a Multi-Color Dreidel on MyMiniFactory by Mosaic Manufacturing and this Kinara – Kwanzaa Candle Holder by user Fargo3DPrinting.

“This is currently prone to tipping backwards, so some adjustments will be made in the future,” Fargo3DPrinting wrote about the holder. “It was designed to be printed flat on its “back.” Full size will fit 1/2″ tapered candles. Can be scaled to fit bigger or smaller candles.”

Kinara – Kwanzaa Candle Holder

Happy holidays, and as always, happy 3D printing!

Will you try making any of these holiday-themed 3D prints? Let us know! Discuss this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below.

3D printing has been studied by several different institutions as a method for aiding in a process called transcatheter aortic valve replacement, or TAVR. More than one in eight people aged 75 and older in the United States develop moderate to severe blockage of the aortic valve, often caused by calcified deposits that build up on the valve’s leaflets and prevent them from fully opening and closing. Many of these patients are not healthy enough to undergo open heart surgery, so TAVR is an alternative that involves deploying an artificial valve via a catheter inserted into the aorta.

Inserting the properly sized valve is critical; if the valve is too small, it can dislodge or leak around the edges, and if it’s too large it can rip through the heart, which can be fatal. It’s a challenge to select the correct size without directly examining the patient’s heart, however. But researchers at the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University have come up with a 3D printing workflow that creates models of individual patients’ aortic valves using CT scan data, in addition to a “sizer” device that helps cardiologists determine the proper valve size. The work is documented in a paper entitled “Pre-procedural fit-testing of TAVR valves using parametric modeling and 3D printing.” The research was carried out  in collaboration with researchers and physicians from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, The University of Washington, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces.

“If you buy a pair of shoes online without trying them on first, there’s a good chance they’re not going to fit properly. Sizing replacement TAVR valves poses a similar problem, in that doctors don’t get the opportunity to evaluate how a specific valve size will fit with a patient’s anatomy before surgery,” said James Weaver, Ph.D., a Senior Research Scientist at the Wyss Institute who is a corresponding author of the paper. “Our integrative 3D printing and valve sizing system provides a customized report of every patient’s unique aortic valve shape, removing a lot of the guesswork and helping each patient receive a more accurately sized valve.”

When a patient needs a new heart valve, they typically get a CT scan, but while the outer wall of the aorta and any calcified deposits are easily seen on a scan, the leaflets that open and close the valve are often too thin to show up clearly.

“After a 3D reconstruction of the heart anatomy is performed, it often looks like the calcified deposits are simply floating around inside the valve, providing little or no insight as to how a deployed TAVR valve would interact with them,” Dr. Weaver said.

To address this issue, Ahmed Hosny, who was a Research Fellow at the Wyss Institute at the time, created a software program that uses parametric modeling to generate virtual 3D models of the leaflets using seven coordinates on each patient’s valve that are visible on CT scans. The 3D models were then merged with the CT data and adjusted so that they fit into the valve correctly. The resulting model, which incorporates the leaflets and their calcified deposits, was then 3D printed in multiple materials.

The researchers also 3D printed a custom sizer device that fits inside the 3D printed valve and expands and contracts to determine what size artificial valve would best fit each patient. They then wrapped the sizer with a thin layer of pressure-sensing film to map the pressure between the sizer and the 3D-printed valves and their associated calcified deposits, while gradually expanding the sizer.

“We discovered that the size and the location of the calcified deposits on the leaflets have a big impact on how well an artificial valve will fit into a calcified one,” said Hosny, who is currently at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. “Sometimes, there was just no way a TAVR valve would fully seal a calcified valve, and those patients could actually be better off getting open-heart surgery to obtain a better-fitting result.”

The multi-material 3D printed valve models could also more accurately mimic the behavior of real heart valves during artificial valve deployment, as well as provide haptic feedback as the sizer is expanded. The researchers tested the system against data from 30 patients who had already undergone TAVR procedures. 15 of those patients had developed leaks from too-small valves. The researchers predicted, based on how well the sizer fit into the 3D printed models of their aortic valves, what size valve each patient should have received, and whether they would experience leaks after the procedure. The system successfully predicted leak outcome in 60 to 73% of the patients, depending on the type of valve each patient had received, and determined that 60% of the patients had received the correctly sized valve.

“Being able to identify intermediate- and low-risk patients whose heart valve anatomy gives them a higher probability of complications from TAVR is critical, and we’ve never had a non-invasive way to accurately determine that before,” said co-author Beth Ripley, M.D., Ph.D, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Radiology at the University of Washington who was a Cardiovascular Imaging Fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital when the study was done. “Those patients might be better served by surgery, as the risks of an imperfect TAVR result might outweigh its benefits.”

The researchers have made their leaflet modeling software and 3D printing protocol available online for free.

“At the core of the personalized medicine challenge is the realization that one medical treatment will not serve all patients equally well, and that therapies should be tailored to the individual, said Wyss Institute Founding Director Donald Ingber, M.D., Ph.D., who is also the Judah Folkman Professor of Vascular Biology at Harvard Med’ical School and the Vascular Biology Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, as well as Professor of Bioengineering at Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. T’his principle applies to medical devices as well as drugs, and it is exciting to see how our community is innovating in this space and attempting to translate new personalized approaches from the lab and into the clinic.”

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

[Source/Images:

]

Anelia often wore a mask to help deal with the self-consciousness of her initial jaw surgery.

3D printing continues to lead the medical field to new heights, and while this is a boon for scientists, surgeons, and progressive technology—patients are often the ones emerging as the real winners. Anelia Myburgh can attest to this as she was recently the recipient of a 3D printed jaw implant. And while so many implants today are responsible for improving the quality of life of patients, Myburgh was particularly grateful to have a chance for facial reconstruction.

A native of Melbourne, Australia, Myburgh lost much of the lower portion of her jaw and teeth when surgeons were forced to remove them due to a dangerous tumor (originally discovered when she began complaining of a small bump); in fact, 80 percent of her jaw area was removed due to the cancer doctors found within—leaving her with only a couple of teeth and a significantly disfigured face. They saved her life, but the tumor-removal surgery did not come without a physical and emotional toll also.

Myburgh was understandably self-conscious about being in public after the surgery removing the tumor. She was not alone in such struggles either as so many other cancer patients around the world who have had similar jaw surgery are left with challenges such as adapting to a new and often less attractive physical demeanor—along with having difficulty in chewing and eating.

“I just want to be able to walk down the street and not have people stare,” said Myburgh before the 3D printed jaw was implanted. “That is my ultimate goal.”

Medical professionals demonstrate how the 3D printed jaw will work.

Her greatest hope was that with the 3D printed implant, her countenance would be more normal once again, and the surgical team was confident beforehand.

“The fact that we can 3D print a frame where we can actually anchor some teeth back for her would give her back her quality of life,” said her maxillofacial surgeon, Dr. George Dimitroulis.

Many medical appointments were necessary with the surgical team before Myburgh went in to the operating room.

The surgery to implant the new 3D printed jaw and titanium frame took five hours and included taking extra skin from her forearm and diverting it to her lip area to help with normalizing her facial area again. Such a procedure would cost around $22,000 in US dollars. It was a huge success for Myburgh though, who now has a full set of new teeth and reconstructed lips. And while her bravery and beauty certainly shine from within, there is no denying that the 3D printed jaw allowed her to return to her former attractive self. Not only that, now she can enjoy the joy of cheeseburgers again!

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:

;

]

Anelia sees her new face for the first time.

VIDEO

A thumb splint may seem like a simple device, designed to keep an injured thumb stable so that it can heal. But according to a pair of researchers from Deakin University, upper limb splints often do not fit optimally and thus are underused by patients, resulting in a less than optimal recovery. In a paper entitled “Design and additive manufacturing of a patient specific polymer thumb splint concept,” the researchers describe how they used CAD to design a more functional, comfortable and aesthetically pleasing splint, and then used 3D printing to produce it at low cost.

Currently, the researchers point out, the standard practice for making splints is to use plaster of Paris, which can be “highly restrictive and uncomfortable for the patients.” Even with attempts to custom make splints, the rate of non-adherence is relatively high with current techniques and materials. Comfort, appearance, and effects on Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) are cited as reasons why patients do not use the splints.

“With respect to current limitations of current splint devices, insights have revealed a range of factors relating to the non-adherence of wearing an orthoses,” the researchers state. “Factors include difficulties keeping splints clean/dry, poor aesthetical qualities, discomfort due to poorly fitting devices, compromised ability to perform routine tasks and odour related issues. It is believed that the versatility of CAD and AM can be applied to address these issues, realising more ergonomic and aesthetically appealing designs, tailored to the individual’s unique needs and priorities.”

For the study, the researchers scanned a volunteer’s hand using an Artec Spider 3D scanner. They then processed the scanner data using CAD software and created a 3D model of a customized thumb splint. The splint was 3D printed using a Flashforge Creator Pro 3D printer in ABS material. The researchers were challenged to come up with a balance between adequate stiffness to prevent breakage and a device that was as light and thin as possible for comfort. They settled on 3 mm as an ideal thickness for the final design. The splint was also designed to be porous and breathable for additional comfort, and it incorporated openings for a velcro strap.

For comparison purposes, a splint was also made using traditional techniques. This design was not made porous and had adhesive for the velcro strap rather than openings. This alone caused problems because the adhesive pads were prone to losing adhesion and failing after being exposed to moisture. The two splints weighed the same but the 3D printed splint was stiffer.

Once the two splints had been fabricated, the volunteer was asked to wear each one and respond to a series of questions:

• How do you rate the aesthetic qualities of the splint?
• Would you feel happy wearing this device in public?
• How comfortable is the device to wear?
• How stiff would you say the device feels when worn?
• How much mobility of your hand would you say you have remaining to perform everyday tasks?
• How would you rate the device for ease of cleaning your hand and for release of moisture while being worn?

The questions resulted in a rating for each device with a maximum score of 60, with the higher rating being considered optimal. Overall, the 3D printed splint beat the traditional splint by a score of 46 to 26. The 3D printed splint scored higher on each individual question, as well.

The only drawback was that the 3D printed splint took several hours longer to fabricate than the traditional device. The researchers believe that this will be less of an issue as 3D printing technology further develops.

Authors of the paper include Mazher Iqbal Mohammed and Pearse Fay.

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

Ohio company Fabrisonic is well-known in the industry for its hybrid metal 3D printing process, called Ultrasonic Additive Manufacturing (UAM), which uses high frequency ultrasonic vibrations to merge layers of metal foil together in a solid-state. Now, it’s collaborating with optical measurement technology leader Luna Innovations to make 3D printed smart structures.

The collaborative team will use these structures to answer questions such as finding a critical component’s exact strain during operation, and determining if improvements are possible by monitoring an additive manufacturing process in situ.

“Fabrisonic has commercialized a new metal 3D printing process, which occurs at very low temperatures, allowing the team to easily embed Luna fiber optic sensors into solid metal parts,” Fabrisonic’s president and CEO Mark Norfolk wrote. “With complementary technologies, Luna and Fabrisonic’s “smart structures” can be used to collect data for health monitoring and high fidelity command/control as well as for basic science and research.”

The SBIR/STTR program recently awarded the joint Fabrisonic and Luna Innovations team two separate research contracts, which will both focus on embedding sensors into key 3D printed parts in order to deliver important data from inside the components.

Metal build plate with embedded fiber optic sensors, which will be installed in a PBF 3D printer to study the process and quantify quality metrics.

The first research contract will focus on Fabrisonic and Luna developing a smart pipe for fuel systems at NASA. The program will use the pipe for fuel systems which will integrate Luna’s strain sensors into a 3D printed pipe wall to measure such things as heat flux, temperature, and pressure. The strain sensing fibers will be embedded into pipes made of stainless steel and aluminum, which will allow for the “continuous monitoring of strain in the pipe wall.”

Once the fibers have been embedded, Fabrisonic and Luna will seal and cyclically pressure the pipe in order to collect data. After successful calibration, the 3D printed pipe with integral sensing will make it possible for the team to achieve real-time telemetry of temperatures and pressure at multiple important points in NASA’s fuel systems.

The second contract involves the team using Fabrisonic’s UAM process to create a smart baseplate for laser powder bed fusion 3D printers with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). Fabrisonic will embed proprietary fibers from Luna into solid metal instrumented plates, which will be placed into a 3D printer to serve as a powder build’s beginning point.

Then, the team will use the Luna ODiSl measurement system, which measures the residual strain on complex surfaces of 3D printed components, in order to collect hundreds of temperature and strain data points during the build in real time. The ultimate project goal is to improve the overall methodology for powder bed fusion 3D printing processes, in addition to determining how to properly measure capability and anticipate any possible issues before they occur.

Additionally, the team at Fabrisonic and Luna is working with multiple other partners in order to embed fiber optic sensors in highly demanding environments, such as nuclear reactors.

To learn more about how Fabrisonic’s patented solid state UAM metal 3D printing process can be used to integrate fiber optic strain sensors and other temperature-sensitive components directly into dense metal, you can download and read a new technical paper, titled “Building Fiber Optic Strain Sensor into Metal Components,” that was written Dr. Adam Hehr, a Research Engineer at Fabrisonic.

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

[Source/Images:

]

3D printer manufacturer and 3D printing service provider ExOne is known for its binder jetting technology, including metal binder jetting. The company offers more than 10 different 3D printer models, and recently it announced the latest addition to its inventory: the X1 25PRO. The new 3D printer offers the fine powder capabilities – what ExOne calls “fine metal injection molding (MIM) powder capability” of the Innovent+ 3D printer, incorporating them into a larger build envelope. The metal binder jetting machine has production volume capability and is designed to cater to the needs of metal injection molding, powder metallurgy and manufacturing customers looking for a larger solution for producing reliable parts in a production environment.

The X1 25PRO can 3D print parts from a wide variety of metals, including 316L, 304L, and 17-4PH stainless steels; Inconel 718 and 625; M2 and H11 tool steels; cobalt chrome; copper; tungsten carbide-cobalt and more.

“We are pleased to bring the new X1 25PRO™ to market to satisfy the needs of industry for high quality, functional, production-volume parts,” said Rick Lucas, ExOne’s Chief Technology Officer. “ExOne has a pioneering legacy of being on the cutting edge of introducing materials and processes using binder jetting. We currently have machines installed in customer facilities in more than twenty countries around the globe and we are proud to bring innovations like the X1 25PRO™ to realization. Our X1 25PRO™ is the first of two machines that we are introducing by the end of the first half of 2019, utilizing our state-of-the-art patent pending MIM powder processing machine technologies. We believe these new production machines will be the most flexible and highest performing binder jetting machines in the market.”

These are bold claims, and position the X1 25PRO as a direct competitor to machines produced by companies such as Xjet, HP and Desktop Metal. As binder jetting becomes more common, and printer manufacturers strive to outdo each other, where will customers’ loyalties stick?

ExOne, naturally, hopes that those loyalties will flow to it. The company points out that the X1 25PRO is an excellent opportunity for existing customers of the INNOVENT+ platform to scale up to a midsize production system using the same powder metallurgy standard powders they’re already used to. With the X1 25PRO, ExOne is targeting the metal injection molding, powder metallurgy and mechanical engineering market applications.

Orders for the X1 25PRO are now being accepted, and deliveries are expected to begin in late 2019. ExOne introduced the new machine to the public at formnext, which took place in mid-November, but if you didn’t attend that particular show you’ll have another chance to see the X1 25PRO at RAPID + TCT, which is taking place in Detroit from May 21st to 23rd, 2019.

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

Electronic devices are a part of daily life for people across the world – laptops, smart phones, tablets, fitness bands, etc. They’re wonderful to have for many reasons, but none of these devices last forever, and when they’re discarded, they can do serious harm to the environment. Recycling programs are springing up that can refurbish and reuse some of the electronics in the devices, but what about all the plastic that left over? In a paper entitled “The Recycling of E-Waste ABS plastics by melt extrusion and 3D printing using solar powered devices as a transformative tool for humanitarian aid,” a group of researchers discusses how they took ABS plastics found in electronic waste and recycled them using 3D printing.

The researchers used waste plastics from discarded electronic devices within Deakin University‘s School of Engineering. These plastics included the outer casing from devices such as old computers, laptop docking stations and desktop telephones. They cleaned the plastic if needed and then broke it down into fragments and fed it into a hand operated granulation device, which was composed of a series of geared, interlocking teeth that could be rotated using a lever arm. The plastic underwent several phases of repeated grinding, after which it was put through a mesh sieve.

The researchers then created their own melt extrusion device, which they named the Ecostruder. The system uses a single screw system and is powered by an internally geared DC motor.

“To ensure that the screw operates at a constant RPM, an encoder is used to measure the rotational velocity, and which is feedback into a PID controller,” the researchers explain. “The screw is also coupled directly to the geared motor, which provides a simple and robust interface where auxiliary chains are not required. Three individually controlled 50W band heaters provide the ability vary the temperature distribution along the barrel, which in turn allows for control of how the fed waste plastic transitions from solid to the liquid phases.”

Once the filament was generated by the Ecostruder, it was 3D printed using a LulzBot Mini. To make the entire process even more eco-friendly, the researchers used a nanogrid system powered by solar energy, via portable photovoltaic (PV) panels.

“In an ideal scenario, the system which we aimed to create would have the capacity to operate solely from the use of the energy generated by the PV’s,” the researchers state. “This would not be realistic in real operational scenarios and so the aim was to create a dynamic system that could operate directly utilising the energy from the PV cells, and divert excess charge to the lithium-ion batteries. Conversely, in times when insufficient electricity is generated to power a respective device, charge from the battery system can be utilised to sustain operations.”

Tests were performed on the nanogrid system to evaluate its charge generation efficiency. Test 1 was performed on a cloudy day, and Test 2 on a sunny day. The average sustained power output was approximately 14W for test 1 and 210W for test 2. Future modifications of the system may include building larger banks of batteries to store excess charge during times of peak generation, for use on days when power generation is suboptimal.

To test the 3D printing performance of the system, the researchers took it to a location with clear exposure to the sun and 3D printed three different parts: a 20x20x20mm cube, a 30mm diameter and 30mm height cylinder and a lattice structure with a cube of 30x30x30mm. The test was completed in approximately 90 minutes, and the solar panels not only adequately powered the 3D printer but held an excess of energy.

“If we assume the same environmental conditions over a typical day of operation, which would comprise running the 3D printer for 8 hours and the Ecostruder for 2 hours, the generated excess energy would accommodate this usage whilst also charging the battery system by an additional 25Ah,” the researchers state.

Tests were also performed to evaluate the quality of the 3D printed recycled material. To do this, the researchers 3D printed a pipe connector. There were a few cosmetic surface defects, but the part was robust. The researchers used the printed part to join a section of piping, and tested it by blocking the end of one piece of tubing, pressurizing the system using a plumbing pressure testing device. The part held the water with no leakage up to a pressure of 5Bar. The results show that the recycled ABS can be used to 3D print functional parts.

Future studies aim to test the system in field conditions to assess its potential for humanitarian aid.

Authors of the paper include Mazher Iqbal Mohammed, Daniel Wilson, Eli Gomez-Kervin, Callum Vidler, Lucas Rosson and Johannes Long.

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

3D printing has brought the potential for massive change in medicine—relating to so many different aspects, from bioprinting to making surgical guides and many different devices. The area of prosthetics has already been impacted in an extremely positive way, for patients of all ages around the world. Now, women who have undergone mastectomies in New Zealand can look forward to customized prostheses that offer amazing improvement on previous options.

Created by myReflection, these implants can be made as copies of women’s breasts before surgery. Photographs or scans are used to create the images which are then converted into a 3D design and later a 3D print. Fay Cobett of myReflection points out that these 3D printed devices can be credited for improving the quality of life for women who had breast cancer, underwent mastectomies, and want to ‘feel whole’ again.

“We’re all different – scars, lumps, bumps. We need to capture all those details,” explains Cobett.

As a cancer survivor herself, Cobett has firsthand knowledge of what it is like to struggle not only with the disease of breast cancer, but also the frustration of generic implants during the attempt to regain normalcy later. Her partner, Tim Carr (director of myReflection) wanted to create something that would mold to her body rather than cause intense discomfort. Carr began collaborating with 3D print expert Jason Barnett, and myReflection was born.

Jason Barnett – 3D printing expert and chief R&D Engineer for myReflection (Photo credit: myReflection)

The patient-specific prosthetic is so lightweight and versatile that it can be worn with any bra, and due to the affordability associated with 3D printing (along with speed and efficiency in production), replacements are inexpensive.

“This is absolutely a world-first for New Zealand,” says Carr. “I watched [wife] Fay after she lost her breast [and] deal with the generic prosthesis. They don’t stay in place and they were heavy and they were expensive.”

Carr points out that due to the unique quality of the prosthetics, they could charge exponentially more for such a product. Their goal, however, is to make the myReflection prosthetics affordable and accessible. Carr also explains further on the company website that their goal was not to create an ‘elitist product,’ but rather one that women could enjoy easily; in fact, women living in New Zealand who have undergone mastectomies have prosthesis and bra costs covered with four yearly subsidies.

(Photo credit: myReflection)

“It has been such a personal journey for us.” said Carr on the myReflection website. ‘We are really excited to be able to share this product with other women who are going through or have been through what we have. If we can improve the quality of life of women who have been through the hell of breast cancer and help to restore their self-image, then it is all worth it.”

Find out more about the myReflection products and the story of their inspiring work here.

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:

]

VIDEO

Alzheimer’s studies give many of us hope, whether we have a relative or friend suffering from the dreaded disease—or simply because we are hoping that a cure will be there if we begin to experience symptoms of the most common and crushing form of dementia. As bioprinting becomes valuable in so many different areas of medical research, it is no surprise to hear that now scientists are turning their attention toward using it to find better ways for treating Alzheimer’s.

3D printing, and the realm within known as bioprinting, allows for scientists to embrace so many benefits, from affordability and expediency, to the ability to keep trying varying iterations until they complete their mission in research or innovation. One of the greatest challenges in dealing with Alzheimer’s has been finding medication that really works. Not only is there pressure to find it for those who have the existing condition, but also for future generations carrying what is thought to be a genetic marker. In ‘Bioprinting neural tissues using stem cells as a tool for screening drug targets for Alzheimer’s disease,’ Stephanie M. Willerth examines the difficulty in both finding, testing, and approving drugs for this trying disease that tends to affect seniors regarding cognition, memory, and language and reasoning.

“The pathology of Alzheimer’s disease includes the presence of plaques containing aggregates of amyloid beta (αβ) proteins and tangles containing neurofibrillary tangles,” states Willerth in her paper. “Certain genetic mutations increase the possibility of developing Alzheimer’s disease.”

“These mutations consist of an altered APP gene responsible for encoding amyloid precursor protein, along with the PSEN1 and PSEN2 mutations cause decreased activity by the γ-secretase complex. These mutations result in improper processing of the αβ proteins. Currently, approved treatments for Alzheimer’s disease include four different types of cholinesterase inhibitors and the drug memantine – a N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonist that targets glutaminergic neurons to preserve their function.”

Willerth goes on to detail the facts about Memantine, as the only drug approved for Alzheimer’s patients. It has been in use since 2000, and currently there are over 200 other compounds being tested. Memantine is known to be controversial though and Willerth points out that the current drug targets present issues in terms of both successful use in patients, and toxicity, posing a need for improvement before clinical trials commence.

Better testing before trials would diminish costs in drug development, along with decreasing the amount of time it currently takes to create treatments that are successful.

“Current methods for evaluating target compounds consist of animal models of disease and the use of cadaveric human tissues,” states Willerth. “In addition to their lack of predictive capacity, animal models are costly, and the supplies of human neural tissues remain limited. Developing more effective assays for preclinical identification of drug targets will lower the expense of the drug discovery process and increase the likelihood of successful outcomes at the stage of clinical trials.”

The use of human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) is certainly not a novel idea today, having been in use since 2007; however, now, scientists may be able to use such technology regarding Alzheimer’s, reprogramming cells from patients into hiPSCs. While this could offer better tools for studying the disease, and screening drug targets, it could also further studies regarding progression of the disease in patients. Along with that—and this is where bioprinting and 3D printing so often come in—greater patient-specific care should be available too.

“The use of hiPSC lines containing the different genetic mutations associated with Alzheimer’s disease also enables the use of personalized medicine for treating different subsets of the disease. While cells are often cultured on 2D substrates in vitro, these conditions do not accurately mimic the microenvironment present in the CNS,” states Willerth, who goes on to mention research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison where scientists have created stem cells that are able to successfully predict toxicity levels in different compounds.

With alternative methods like 3D bioprinting, tissue engineering is possible but there may still be challenges in controlling viability and ‘behavior’ of cells.

“Recent advances in bioprinting have enabled the printing of hiPSCs using microfluidic extrusion, opening the possibility for applying this technology for high-throughput production of hiPSC-derived neural tissues,” state the researchers. “Recent developments in 3D bioprinting technologies make printing physiologically relevant neural tissues derived from hiPSCs a real possibility.”

Both 3D printing and bioprinting offer untapped potential, along with technology using suspended hydrogels to make complex structures.

“My group has successfully developed microspheres for delivery of two small molecule morphogens – guggulsterone and purmorphamine,” states Willerth. “Our data have shown that such microspheres are powerful tools for promoting the differentiation of hiPSCs into neural tissues and being able to place different combinations and concentrations of microspheres into precise locations using 3D printing would enable production of tissues like that found in the brain and spinal cord. These 3D printed neural tissues could then be used for screening potential drug targets for Alzheimer’s disease as an alternative to expensive preclinical animal testing.”

As work progresses in the future, Willerth’s paper details issues that must be resolved, such as the means for more stable vasculature to bioprint arrays for drug testing.

“Such work could also contribute to development of engineered tissues that could be transplanted for regenerating damaged regions of the central nervous system. Overall, 3D bioprinting hiPSC-derived neural tissues hold significant potential as a novel way to generate new tools for screening drug targets for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease,” concludes Willerth.

This project is funded by the Canada Research Chairs program, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council, and the British Columbia Innovation Council’s Ignite Program. SM Willerth also has a commercialization agreement with Aspect Biosystems with regards to 3D printing neural tissues and a provisional patent on a bioink.

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.

Photo credit: UVic Photo Services

There are not a lot of people out there with over 25 years of experience in 3D Printing. One of those people is Kevin McAlea. He is currently an EVP at 3D Systems and in charge of the company’s Healthcare and Metal Printing Business Units. In Healthcare 3D Systems is deploying 3D printing and 3D scanning into various medical markets from medical models to patient-specific implants and surgical planning. The company has software for doctors and hospitals, can also sell 3D printing as a service or can sell machines. In metal printing 3D Systems’ sells specialized metal printers for dental as well as larger production systems for industry such as its DMP Flex 350 and DMP Factory 500 systems. Previously Kevin worked as VP for Europe, VP Marketing, SVP for Production Printers at 3D Systems. Before this Kevin was the Vice President of Marketing and Business Development at venerable laser sintering company DTM which was acquired by 3D Systems. Kevin started at DTM in 3D printing in 1993. Not only are there few people with this much experience there are very few people that have fullfilled so many different operational roles in 3D printing businesses and barely any people that additionally have as deep an experience with polymer sintering, metal sintering, inkjet and stereolithography. It’s a real treat to be able to interview a true pioneer and veteran such as Kevin.

What have you learned in your 25 years in 3D printing?

Over the course of my career in 3D printing, what I find most interesting has always been the potential applications. In the early years of 3D printing, it was about prototyping. But the realization has existed for quite some time that at some point manufacturers would be able to migrate from prototyping to production. The transformative potential of the technology enables compelling use cases and applications. The industry has gone through several hype cycles, but if you’ve been in industry long enough, you’ve seen steady growth in use for production manufacturing such as for hearing aids and dental aligners. Manufacturing with additive is real today, and will drive this industry beyond what we’ve seen in last 25-30 years – that’s what makes this so exciting.

What have been some of the biggest changes?

For more than 15 years, 3D printing was largely a hidden cottage industry – no one knew anything about it. Today, everyone has heard of it, but with this broad awareness, there have also been some misconceptions about how it can be used and its maturity. In the last 10 years, we’ve seen quite a shift. When 3D printing began, it was initially an industry with a small number of players and limited investment. Today, we’re seeing lots of investment money coming in to the industry. Along with additional money, we’re seeing a lot of new players and technologies. While these will not all prove to be long-term winners, it creates churn in the market – pushing all the technology providers to grow and push the boundaries of what is possible. And this is what helps drive growth and innovation.

What has it been like working in this industry?

In a macro sense, it’s been something of a roller coaster ride. In the history of 3D printing, some have seen its potential as poised for huge success but then they’ve written it off. It’s very cyclical. If you’re fortunate enough to be on the inside of this industry, what makes it so compelling is all the new applications being developed and taking off. Not many people in their careers get the opportunity to work on transformational applications.

Where is our industry now?

With the sheer amount of investment going into the industry right now, new technologies are being developed and existing technologies are expanding. We’re seeing manufacturers implementing new applications and setting up factories. And many large companies are embarking on research and exploration to determine how they can integrate 3D printing into their business. Over the next decade, there will be a big sorting out that will take place as many of these pieces fall into place.

What are some things that need to change?

While the industry has made tremendous strides over the past 30 years, the technology is still relatively immature. And we also see many manufacturers out there that still don’t fully understand where to apply 3D printing, where it makes sense, what parts can benefit from 3D printing and the resulting cost benefit, as well as truly embracing the capital required to set up their factory. There is still quite a bit to be done in terms of educating the market, and providing partnership and counsel to help manufacturers.

What are some of the biggest challenges?

In addition to what I just mentioned, we need to take stock of what is available in the industry with regard to technology, materials and how they can be applied to parts selection and cost. We also need a broader portfolio of materials to expand the range of applications which can be addressed through enhanced speed and parts cost reduction.

A 3D Systems DMP Factory 500 Metal 3D Printing System

What have been some key developments in metal printing?

The fact that we can produce 3D printed parts with excellent properties from traditional metal alloys has been major part of the success story for metal 3D printing. This allows us to create 3D printed parts for aerospace and medical with limited risk that are better or as good as conventionally manufactured parts.

We’ve also seen Increases in print speed which is driving down parts cost, and the ability to make parts in larger sizes that customers like aerospace require.

I believe the third key development to be the ability to certify and validate parts and printers in regulated industries. This is a major breakthrough allowing us to enter advanced manufacturing segments and be successful.

How do you see the future of Direct Metal Printing?

To date, we’ve seen on-going, increased adoption in advanced manufacturing segments such as aerospace, power generation, and medical devices. This is all still in the early stages, but we’ve seen enough demonstrated success that it will drive advancements in next 5-10 years. I believe the technology will also continue to improve – for example, process control, QA, several-fold increase in speed, and the holes in materials portfolio will close – driving increased adoption.

A DMP Factory 350

What have been some of the key advancements in healthcare?

Healthcare like aerospace is a heavily regulated industry. To be successful, a technology partner must demonstrate they can print a part and meet all the requirements for its use in a very rigorous way. It’s also imperative to demonstrate you can install and validate this (3D printing) equipment for a medical environment. The FDA is very transparent in how they operate and their regulatory requirements. Multiple OEMS and service providers have been able to show they can validate use of the printers to make these parts to meet regulatory approval coupled with quality work in factory environment. Huge breakthroughs have been made in this area which have resulted from lots of work by lots of people. You can talk ad nauseam about parts that could be designed by 3D printing, but without validation and approval, there’s no forward movement.

How difficult is it to manufacture medical devices with 3D printing?

It depends. This is a tough question to answer. It’s important for the manufacturer to understand how to apply 3D printing and what parts to select to print. Right now, this is still very much in its infancy. People are still sorting out the range of potential medical devices (i.e., implants and instrumentation) that make good sense for 3D printing. Before production can even take place, a manufacturer must ensure they can operate correctly in a factory environment and validate the printers for production. Many medical device companies can validate traditional factory equipment, but 3D printers are a whole different animal. Today, this is still not a common practice, nor well-understood.

What advice would you give a company interested in manufacturing medical devices?

If a company wants to manufacture medical devices they need to find the right partner with the know-how to set up and validate these environments. And currently, the know-how exists in pockets. 3D Systems has it with experience in our facilities in Denver, CO and Leuven, Belgium,, and the expertise of application teams that understand how to optimize processes, and validate those processes in-house. When a manufacturer works with the right partner, it reduces the time it takes to get from “want to do this” to actually executing.

· Do you see printing medical devices as something that will be done in-house, by specialized manufacturers, by services?

There are two primary routes for medical device manufacturing. Of course, there is in-house production and all large medical device companies will do some amount of in-house manufacturing. However, even for these large manufacturers, there will still be certain classes or types of parts they choose to outsource. Mid-size manufacturers, on the other hand, will primarily outsource the production based on the segment they’re addressing and how large a percentage of their business it is.

The supply chain will be comprised of large OEMs producing some of the parts complemented by traditional contract manufacturers who already supply these device manufacturers who are considering 3D printing as a new option to deliver those parts. Again, the important piece to keep in mind is selecting a well-trusted vendor partner that has the experience, certifications, and post-processing capabilities required. 3D Systems has an objective to enable this. We’re setting up a certified partner network and acting as the trusted vendor.

In metal printing for dental, what are some interesting recent developments?

There is an on-going good opportunity in dental for direct production of crowns & bridges as well as implants. And, specifically for implants, there are some opportunities for hybrid manufacturing – that is, blending additive manufacturing with traditional manufacturing. There is also a small but interesting opportunity to produce crowns from precious metals.

A 3D printed exhaust made on 3D Systems Equipment is on the right while the conventionally made exhaust on the left would have a much higher part count. 

What is needed to truly industrialize metal printing?

First and foremost, we need strong tools for process control and QA. In situ QA tools are pretty essential to fully industrializing a technology. With these tools we are able to reliably predict the output – or final part – based on inputs. Tools for both are in the early stages right now, but we currently have more and more tools to understand what’s going on in-process. These tools help us learn something about the quality of parts produced prior to inspecting them.

To industrialize metal printing, we also need a closer integration of additive and subtractive manufacturing. In almost all cases we don’t simply take 3D printed parts out of the machine and use them as-is. Typically, there is fairly significant post-processing involving multiple steps to get to the final part including machining and wire EDM. Today, that transition is fairly awkward and not very smooth.

It will also be imperative for manufacturers to have a deeper understanding of parts selection and cost prediction. What parts make the most sense to 3D print? How can we predict the cost to produce them? And then how do we select the right projects to start and ensure a profitable outcome?

In medical printing I see a lot of consumers thinking that they’ll get a heart printed a few years from now. Meanwhile, on the research side, people tell me that it will take 20 years for us to print complex organs. What’s your view?

I believe it’s important to separate the potential proof of concepts and all the fascinating work currently ongoing from all the steps needed to actually put this inside a person. As discussed previously, healthcare is a highly regulated industry. So while there are lots of interesting demonstrations of what’s possible, there is a pretty significant gap to actually going through regulatory steps to get these into a person.

You’ve worked in inkjet for a long time. Binder jetting metal is all the rage. Is this something for 3D Systems to consider?

We track all new technologies, including non-laser powder bed processes. There could be opportunities for two-stage processes, where a green part is created in a printer and then solidified in a high-temperature furnace. This might be suitable for parts that would normally made by MIM (Metal Injection Molding). With no tooling required and the ability to use lower-cost powders, there might be some very interesting opportunities for this approach. However, I have some doubts as to whether the properties are sufficient to target the applications we address today.

What advice would you give firms that wish to industrialize 3D printing for manufacturing?

In my years in the industry, I’ve seen many companies attempt to truly industrialize additive. The ones who are the most successful are the manufacturers that partner with a company that has the expertise and experience to guide them to successful implementation. The biggest obstacle we see is companies that don’t understand the technology well enough to select the right parts to 3D print. If the wrong part is selected for the process, you run the risk of tainting everyone’s view of 3D printing. The right partner can help not only select the right part, but then help design it in a way that is appropriate for AM. Additionally, and perhaps even more fundamentally, is putting together a business plan and developing the case for how AM can positively impact overall operations.