This week: an open AI model for materials that has more downloads than DeepSeek but still can’t touch a bioink, a Singapore clearance for a 3D-printed wound-care implant, three fresh bioprinting papers, and cartilage printing aboard the space station.

The big thing

AI Model for materials beat DeepSeek’s downloads. It still can’t help fill the biology gap.

At our Biomaterials Frontier event, a Johns Hopkins and NIST materials scientist Prof. Kamal Choudhary mentioned, almost in passing, that his open AI model (DiffractGPT) for materials had been downloaded more times on Hugging Face than DeepSeek. But that is hard not to notice.

Kamal Choudhary has built the tools that make AI-driven materials discovery real: an open database with 200,000 users, models that predict a material’s properties in seconds, and a “ChatGPT for materials” that plugs into Claude. Hand one an X-ray pattern and it will propose the atomic structure behind it, including for compounds that do not exist yet.

And almost none of it can help develop biomaterials. At least not yet.

That is the uncomfortable part, and Choudhary said it himself when the moderator Craig Rosenblum asked. The AI is fluent in the physics of hard, crystalline materials. It knows little about biology: how it degrades, whether cells like it, whether it heals. Good data barely exists, and the experiments that would create it are the slow, expensive bottleneck.

Which is exactly why it is an opportunity.

The moat in (bio)materials science is not just the model. It will be the biological data few have, and the company patient and strategic enough to generate it.

Read our more in-depth review and analysis based on Dr. Choudhary’s work at Hopkins here, and see where the money goes next, in the full piece: More downloads than DeepSeek: AI Model for Materials (Expert Corner) →

Regulatory watch

• UltiMaker and Bioactivx: a 3D-printed wound-care implant clears Singapore’s HSA — Bioactivx’s synthetic, animal-free Bioactiv Matrix, printed on UltiMaker systems in an ISO 13485 cleanroom, won Singapore HSA approval, with US, EU, Australia and ASEAN filings pending. A proof point that additive manufacturing can meet certified end-use device standards, not just prototyping. (This is a Singapore HSA clearance, not an FDA action; no new FDA 510(k) AM clearances surfaced this week.)

Clinical & research

• In-situ bioprinting builds a blood supply inside new bone (Acta Biomaterialia · via PubMed) — Targets bioprinting’s core bottleneck, keeping thick tissue alive by printing its vasculature in place. Preclinical (mouse).
• A bioprinted dentin-pulp model that mineralizes and grows vessel-like channels (Biofabrication · via PubMed) — Stiffer zones drive mineralization while softer zones form vessels, a tunable test bed for regenerative dentistry. In vitro.
• A 3D-printed scaffold plus engineered stem cells regrows injured nerves (Bioactive Materials · via PubMed) — Scaffold-guided peripheral-nerve repair restored function in a preclinical model. Proof of concept (rat).

Also this week

• An AI database pairs drugs with excipients for on-demand pharmacy printing (VoxelMatters) — University of Mississippi with Colorcon; in development, not yet deployed.
• Cartilage bioprinting tops the research schedule aboard the ISS (NASA) — Reported microgravity crew activity, not a published result.
• ‘Subvoxel’ multimaterial bioprinting co-extrudes several bio-inks at once (Technology.org) — Demonstrated in cultivated meat; the multimaterial technique may transfer to tissue engineering.

From 3DHEALS

• Biomaterials & 3D Printing in Healthcare: event recap — The write-up by our intern Peter Hsu from the Biomaterials Frontier panel behind this week’s lead.
• Episode 127: Lean compliance for medical 3D printing, with Erik Boelen — The latest Lattice Podcast, on making quality systems workable at the point of care.
• On-demand course: AI Updates for 3D Printing and Bioprinting — Goes deeper on AI across the print-to-clinic workflow.

Subscribe to The Lattice Brief

The post AI for Materials Has A Biological Gap | The Lattice Brief (9/19/26) appeared first on 3DHeals.

What makes our events so exciting to me is that we get to answer the question: What does it mean to create? I think it’s one of the most fundamental questions that 3D printing enthusiasts have the opportunity to face. A print bed is an empty canvas like no other, ready for a creation that is meant to be touched by human hands, used in our daily lives, and tested to the extremes. For those in the medical field, that creation goes a step further to becoming an integral part of the human body and helping to live with greater longevity and vigor. How do we create something that carries so much responsibility? How do we build with intention and care? To begin to think about these challenges, we turn to our recent 3DHEALS event on the Biomaterials Frontier, where we learned from creators pioneering the future of absorbable implants, computational design, and biomaterials manufacturing.

Discovering the world through design

Dr. Ebrahim Yarali, a Postdoctoral Researcher at Maastricht University, uses 2D unit cells to create intricate 3D structures that can be used as cellular scaffolds. These “unit cells” are simple 2D shapes that can be repeated into a 3D lattice-like structure. Using a computational approach, they can design unit cells and their corresponding 3D forms with predicted mechanical properties. They can then be fabricated using two-photon polymerization, a light-based 3D printing method for creating ultra-small objects.

To test the designs, they grew preosteoblasts on the scaffolds. Preosteoblasts are cells found in humans and other animals that eventually become the cells that create bone. While bone cells are known to “feel” the structure of their surroundings and respond accordingly, the exact mechanisms and environments needed to produce certain responses aren’t entirely clear. Dr. Yarali found that cells on scaffolds with positive Poisson’s ratios had higher metabolic activity than those with negative Poisson’s ratios. These “architected biomaterials” can ultimately help us to one day grow artificial bone with just the right properties that properly repair injuries.

What’s fascinating about Dr. Yarali’s work is his attention to the fundamental building blocks of design. By crafting simple 2D shapes and lines into repeating patterns, Dr. Yarali is able to form mesmerizing 3D architectures that are able to interact with and influence life itself. Through this appreciation of basic design principles, we can begin to better understand the complex nature of biology, exploring its mysteries with careful attention to fine-grained, low-level details. That’s a valuable counterpoint as we enter an age that increasingly prioritizes fast-paced, high-level design.

Creating AI that actually helps people

Dr. Kamal Choudhary, an Assistant Professor at Johns Hopkins University, focuses on creating AI software for materials research. Dr. Choudhary developed JARVIS, a highly extensive collection of public datasets and tools for materials design. The project includes JARVIS-DFT, a database of materials with computed properties that can be used to quickly identify materials of interest. There’s also JARVIS-ALIGNN, an AI model designed to use atomic distances and bond angles to predict a variety of properties, including a material’s stability and whether it is a conductor, semiconductor, or insulator.

Recently, Dr. Choudhary created his own version of ChatGPT aimed to answering materials science questions by leveraging domain-specific databases to address the need for more accurate language models. Taking AI even further, he has created AtomGPT, a platform that consists of AI “agents” that determine when and how to use different external materials science databases and tools to solve a user’s task.

Central to Dr. Choudhary’s work is an emphasis on building tools that actually help people discover and learn in a more enriching way. Careful design choices about what data and evidence influence the models, how the user interacts with the platform, and how to properly validate the results are key to creating with thoughtfulness and intention. In making these choices, the human becomes a beneficiary of this technology, not just a means to pursue greater AI adoption in scientific fields.

When we put the needs of people and communities first, we can begin to realize better ways to build domain-specific AI and technology. That’s even more important as we progress towards one day achieving an AtomGPT that is biologically aligned, with knowledge of biocompatibility and medically relevant materials. Discoveries that affect human health could one day depend on such technology, and we must create knowing who we are ultimately impacting.

Bringing accessibility into the equation

Dr. Andrew Weems, Founder and CEO of Resilient Medical Corp, is working on commercializing the Bravo device, a 3D-printed polyester scaffold that is implanted into the empty space following the removal of a lump in breast cancer surgery. The scaffold helps by providing support for breast tissue to grow in that space, improving the recovery process and cosmetic outcomes.

Dr. Weems talked about how they previously explored thiol-epoxy foams and 3D-printed photopolymers as potential biomaterials for their scaffold. However, they ultimately pivoted away from these more experimental methods due to the regulatory challenges of getting such novel materials approved. Instead, they strategically selected commercial, off-the-shelf polyester that is FDM-printed with a clearer regulatory pathway. This means that they can more easily fit within the traditional surgical workflow rather than presenting barriers.

Accessibility is a cornerstone of what it means to create. When we create, we decide how others will access our ideas. Turning our thoughts into tangible, physical prints lets us to share our care and attention with the people who receive them. Accessibility is far-reaching: it includes timely availability, usability in a variety of environments, and access to relevant, understandable information. Innovation and accessibility go hand in hand, and it is our responsibility to ensure accessibility is intentionally built into everything we create.

Designing a process for the future

Fabian Trumper, Co-Founder and CEO of Arrakis Bio, is advancing the next generation of biomaterials by manufacturing collagen derived from human cells. By using human cells instead of other animals or bacteria, they can produce collagen with properties we would want in a human-relevant model, potentially providing better insights into human biology and disease.

A key consideration for Trumper is making human collagen at industrial scale and cost, which will be necessary to meet the demands of bioprinting companies and research. By using cells that produce 50x more collagen than untreated cells, Trumper is building the manufacturing processes needed to bring human collagen biomaterials to life.

When we create, the process matters. Ultimately, the process becomes part of the product itself and matters as much as the end goal. When we think about the process, we’re figuring out how to make our creations sustainable in the long-run. How exactly do we create this so that we can keep creating it 10, 50 years down the line? It isn’t just a question of efficiency and scalability; it’s also about ethics, quality, and societal responsibility. Producing collagen with donated human cells helps us move away from animals in research and has the potential to improve the quality of research and products for patients.

Join us live at our future events

It’s exciting to see how these biomaterial innovators are creating the future of healthcare 3D printing. We are continuing to see impressive strides in biomaterials year after year. To catch up on what we’ve seen in the past, check out 3DHEALS articles featuring our sponsors, Dr. Scott Taylor from Poly-Med and Craig Rosenblum from Himed. Stay up to date on the latest in biomaterials by subscribing to the 3DHEALS newsletter and joining our future events live.

About the Author:

Peter Hsu

Peter Hsu is an editorial intern for 3DHEALS.  He is currently an undergraduate at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and studies bioengineering with a focus on cell and tissue engineering.  He is also minoring in computer science with interests in artificial intelligence and image processing.  Peter conducts research on using computer vision methods to analyze human tissue images and improve the robustness of machine learning workflows.  He is interested in the use of AI to assist tissue engineering and bioprinting research for medical applications.  He is passionate about science communication and leads STEM outreach lessons at schools in the central Illinois area.

Related Links:

Event Recap: New Approach Methodologies (NAMs)

Event Recap: Advancing 3D Surgical Planning

Communicating Your Science in the Bioprinting Space

Event Recap: 3D-Printed Devices In Orthopedics

Event Recap: Microfluidic Devices and 3D Printing

Expert Corner: AI in Healthcare 3D Printing: The Future is Now

Microfluidic Devices and 3D Printing (On Demand, 2025)

Event Recap: 3D Printed Pharmaceuticals

The post Biomaterials & 3D Printing in Healthcare: Event Recap appeared first on 3DHeals.

This week’s Lattice Brief asks whether in-house hospital 3D printing is really going mainstream, or just thriving inside well-funded academic and government-backed centers. A five-year survey of European neurosurgeons shows printing moving decisively in-house, and increasingly into implants, even as a candid talk with a private-practice orthopedic surgeon suggests the everyday clinic hasn’t followed. Around that question, we cover the week’s standards and regulatory moves; three peer-reviewed advances, from a human jawbone-regeneration cohort to cartilage regrown in animals and a touch-sensing prosthetic skin; and two new pieces from 3DHEALS on metamaterials and university technology transfer.

The big thing

Will in-house 3D printing really scale?

A European survey says hospital printing moved in-house and up to implants. A veteran orthopedic surgeon says he barely touches it. So, what is the truth?

This week’s most consequential medical 3D printing story is a shift in who makes the devices. A five-year survey of European neurosurgeons, published in the International Journal of Bioprinting and covered by 3D Printing Industry recently, found departmental printing moved decisively in-house between 2020 and 2025. Neurosurgeon-led printing rose from 0% to 20.68%; reliance on an outside printing company fell from 21.81% to zero; implant fabrication climbed from 0% to 27.58% of reported uses. Caveat: two surveys, neurosurgery only. Several points still stand out:

1. Outsourcing 3D printing dropped to zero. In-house centers do win on turnaround, vendor markups, surgeon control, quality assurance, and data privacy, but zero is still surprising. I have observed biomedical engineers who used to work for vendors eventually end up in a hospital 3D printing center, working more intimately with the clinicians. Perhaps, this is the Way.
2. The cost paradox: About 80% of respondents reported better per-model cost efficiency due to cheaper desktop printers, cheaper materials, no vendor markups. Capital expenditure and staff time remain the top barriers. Only ~32% of departments received increased administrative funding or dedicated institutional budgets since 2020, highlighting a gap between clinical enthusiasm and hospital financial backing.
3. Knowledge gap: The hardware and software questions drew a striking share of “unknown” answers. In Figure 1K, regarding printing technique, “Unknown” represents the single largest category (~40–50% of responses) in both 2020 and 2025. Worse, it seems the percentage of surgeons aware of the software used is decreasing over time in these institutions. While one might imagine physician champaigns (and even “technical physicians”) now work closer with the engineering team than ever, the reality might be siloed departments or initiatives relying on individual “power users”. Maybe the technical mechanics don’t matter to day-to-day clinical work. Or maybe that gap is exactly what limits a program’s longevity.

Back in 2017, 3DHEALS published a cost model for an in-house hospital printing service, using a cardiothoracic example with a $300,000 Stratasys Objet500 Connex3, roughly $367,600 in acquisition cost, and a 125-print breakeven that left year one in the red. The verdict then: build it only with real volume and patience.

So, who cleared that bar? The survey’s respondents were mostly university hospitals, and its authors concede the pattern may widen the gap between academic and community centers. The other showcase examples of compliant in-house implant manufacturing are both public money: the U.S. Walter Reed military medical center, the first point-of-care institution with an FDA 510(k) clearance for an implant it makes itself, and Madrid’s public Hospital 12 de Octubre, now ISO 13485-certified. In-house printing is growing, but so far inside academic and government-funded systems with the staff, capital, and quality apparatus to carry it.

Then there’s the ground truth. Last week I asked a seasoned private-practice orthopedic surgeon how often 3D printing enters his routine knee cases. His answer: rarely and only for the genuinely complex ones. Feel free to do your own field survey. That’s striking, because orthopedics is supposedly the field where 3D printing already won: the major implant makers have printed porous titanium at industrial scale for over a decade. But that is centralized manufacturing the surgeon never experiences as “3D printing.” At the point of care, for the everyday case, patient-specific printing can still feel more like a marketing term than a tool.

Our view: “Point-of-care 3D printing” has three tribes. One thrives in academic and public institutions, one inside the implant industry’s own factories. The third and largest, the community private practitioner isn’t yet totally on board. The real question was never whether this group will adopt 3D printing (in-house or outsourced) but when reimbursement, standards, and outcome evidence will finally line up.

If you work in orthotics and prosthetics, help our super fan Dr. Jade Ward map the field: fill out our short O&P survey.

Sources: Özdemir D, Middelkamp M, et al. “The development of three-dimensional printing in neurosurgical departments across Europe: A five-year perspective.” Int. J. Bioprint. 2026;12(3):026090076. DOI: 10.36922/IJB026090076. Trade coverage: 3D Printing Industry, Sept 3, 2026. Historical reference: 3DHEALS, “In-House Cost Consideration for 3D Printing for Surgical Applications, Part 2,” 2017. Orthopedic observation: author’s own conversation, Sept 2026.

Regulatory watch

• Advancing European standards and regulations for 3D bioprinting — Trends in Biotechnology – the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and CEN-CENELEC argue clear standards and regulatory frameworks are the gating step to safe clinical bioprinting. (No new FDA 510(k) additive-device clearance surfaced this week.)
• ASTM International launches Critical and Emerging Technologies (CET) Division — Additive-manufacturing standardization stays the flagship as ASTM broadens its remit; standards convergence is a gating factor for medical AM qualification.

Clinical & research

• Alveolar bone regeneration using 3D-printed, patient-specific, resorbable PCL scaffolds (J. Clin. Periodontol.) — A 10-patient prospective cohort – a rare human clinical readout, with mean regenerated volume ~112% of the original defect.
• BIO INX material enables functional cartilage regeneration in a rabbit study (European Polymer Journal) — First in vivo proof for multiphoton-printed DEGRAD INX microscaffolds; repaired tissue reached ~91% of native cartilage thickness.
• 3D-printed electronic skin gives prosthetics touch and temperature sensing (Cell Reports Physical Science) — A scan-model-print e-skin reportedly senses at ~10x the resolution of commercial glove sensors – a step toward truly sensate prosthetics.

From 3DHEALS

Metamaterial and 3D Printing — Jenny Chen on why metamaterials – structures whose properties come from designed micro/nano geometry rather than their base material – are a natural partner for 3D printing: implants tunable for strength and resorption, higher-sensitivity printed sensors, and more responsive soft-robotic surgical tools.

The Lattice, Episode 125 – Inside Technology Transfer at UCLA with Mark Wisniewski — Innovation as a chess game: UCLA’s Mark Wisniewski on how technology transfer turns a university-lab idea into a company, a breakthrough, or a treatment – essential listening for anyone pushing medical 3D printing research toward the clinic and the market.

The post Will in-house 3D printing really scale? |The Lattice Brief (9-13-26) appeared first on 3DHeals.

Success in the medical 3D printing space requires the ability to engage audiences with effective technical communication. At 3DHEALS, we’ve seen researchers, clinicians, and entrepreneurs take the podium and deliver some of the most incredible presentations on the latest 3D printing technologies and innovations. At our latest 3DHEALS event, “Bench to Bedside: Bioprinting Innovations,” we heard from five industry pioneers who know how to deliver a powerful message to our audience. In this recap article, we’ll dive into what made their presentations so engaging with five key strategies that can boost your science communication skills.

Tip #1: Start with a Story that Establishes Your Credibility

Dr. Joanna Xylas, CEO and Co-Founder of Materialize Bio, began her talk with a story from her time as a clinical educator in Nicaragua in 2017. By detailing her first-hand experiences in a clinical space, Dr. Xylas is able to show us that she understands what “bench-to-bedside” truly means. She also doesn’t bog us down with the details, but rather is quick to tell us the lesson learned: “It was a moment for me where I realized that great engineers can make great innovations, but that the path to actually translating innovation to patients represents the majority of a product’s effort and success.”

By bringing us back into her past, Dr. Xylas gives her presentation a personal touch that sets her apart from the crowd. Your audience will be engaged when you give your presentation life and emotion. But the big question all speakers need to address is: Why tell this story? It’s easy to use a story to break up the monotony of a technical presentation, but a good story is one that establishes trust with your audience.

To give some background: Dr. Xylas’ product is the GLEN 3D Platform, a way of manufacturing natural biopolymers (silk, chitosan, and collagen) into 3D medical implants. One of their products is an ear tube, a device that ventilates the middle ear to manage a chronic infection, but traditionally requires a risky second surgery and anesthesia to remove.

Instead of selling us a veneer of her product, Dr. Xylas is direct about how there are significant challenges with bringing the company’s chitosan ear tubes to clinics, as it costs $500 compared to the standard $50 tube. The new tube could also be an obstacle depending on how the surgeon or facility will get paid compared to the traditional $3-6K surgery, becoming an incredibly difficult balancing act to satisfy stakeholders.

Through her story and her clear commitment to addressing the challenges of clinical translation, Dr. Xylas gives our audience confidence that she’s the best person to bring this product to market. She knows the reality of dealing with the market and ensuring the company’s value proposition really addresses the entire system and all its stakeholders.

Tip #2: Don’t Be Afraid to Talk About the Pivots

At events like these, it can be easy to think that you need to highlight the successes and end results to get the audience’s attention. However, it’s usually the presenters that talk about the journey that turn into the most inspiring moments for the audience.

Monica Wellejus, Chief Commercial Officer at Ossiform, described how the company’s founders actually started by focusing on oral maxillofacial surgery (OMS). Ossiform focuses on 3D printing bone, and she talked about how the fit seemed perfect: the company’s mission would be to fabricate patient-specific bone implants for OMS applications.

However, to make the company actually viable and bring any form of 3D bone bioprinting to market, they had to rethink their strategy and pivot since patient-specific products can be costly to make and not scalable for the long run. Instead, she described how they transitioned to the foot orthopedic market, where they could still leverage 3D printing while allowing their products to be off-the-shelf, ready for a clinician to use them.

It’s these stories of resilience and strategic thinking that make audiences gravitate towards what the speaker has to say. By sharing these turns in the road, we all can learn from each other and apply these lessons to our own pursuits. It also brings character into a presentation – enabling us to understand that overcoming the challenges in 3D printing is just as much about the science as it is about the tenacity and attitude of the people behind the technology.

Don’t be afraid to share the pivots. It’s all part of the journey.

Tip #3: Put Your Visuals in the Spotlight

It’s no surprise that some of our highest viewed YouTube shorts are ones that feature stunning 3D prints and beautiful animations. The biggest mistake presenters make is putting way too much text on a slide. A presentation slide is valuable real estate: put pictures and graphics that draw people into what you have to say rather than filler text that many people will not read.

Carlos Ezio, CEO and Co-Founder of Criocore, featured stunning bioprints in his slides. He’s pioneering the commercialization of cryobioprinting, a technique spun out of the Shrike Zhang Lab at Harvard Medical School, where he spent six years at. Cryobioprinting allows for their special cell-laden bioinks to be extruded onto a build plate then quickly undergo cryopreservation. This freezing process enables the 3D printed construct to maintain its shape rather than being one big wet goop and keeps the cells preserved for long periods of time.

In Ezio’s presentation, their cryobioprinted models were clearly the stars of the show, and the pictures were large and easy to see for the audience. Presenting on Zoom and other online platforms gives you the opportunity of displaying images that the audience will get to see up and close on their own device. Take advantage of that chance to show them prints that will get them excited about your technology.
However, what image you show matters. How does your image act as evidence for the assertion you are trying to make? Your images should clearly convey a message that answers the biggest questions your audience will potentially have, rather than just tell them that you are doing cool things. For Ezio, his visuals evidently show us that his technology has the power to create constructs with the proper shape and control he is claiming.

Tip #4: Bridge the Knowledge Gap for Cross-Disciplinary Audiences

There’s a myth that you have to “dumb it down” for audiences that might not be in your particular field. Even within medical 3D printing, you’ll still encounter parts of our audience that are highly specialized in their own area. A 3D computational modeling specialist might not have your level of two-photon polymerization knowledge, for example.

However, the tip here is that you can explain pretty much whatever you want, as long as you explain it right. There’s no need to dumb it down and insult the audience, but rather your strategic use of analogies and visuals can be carefully crafted so you can leverage what the audience already knows to get your point across.

Dr. Neeti Srivastava, Director of R&D at Bezwada Biomedical, had the challenging task of explaining the company’s polyurethane biochemistry solution to a diverse audience of 3D printing enthusiasts, some of whom don’t think about chemistry on a daily basis.

Dr. Srivastava shows us a comparison between the MDI (methylene diphenyl diisocyanate) molecule, which consists of two rings connected together, and their solution, which has an R-group between the two rings. One can think of the two rings as people holding hands so tightly that it is very hard to bring them apart. By putting something in between the two rings, the company can create compounds that degrade over time, kind of like making the two people hold a piece of string between them that can be easily cut.

By explaining the chemistry and showing how their molecules differ from traditional MDI, Dr. Srivastava gives our audience an inside look into their technology that can be easily understood, rather than hiding the details and going straight to the applications. This helps us to better understand how their products work and boosts our interest in the company.

And finally… Tip #5: Listen and Learn with Us.

Mastering the art of science communication is not simple. As we’ve seen from our event, the most effective speakers are those that root their presentations in credibility, realism, visual content, and effective technical explanations. Their work makes us truly excited for the future of bioprinting, and it’s their ability to share their personal experiences that solidifies our confidence in their vision of bringing bioprinting into the clinic. Join us in our future events to continue learning from our speaker panels, and subscribe to our newsletter and YouTube channel.

About the Author:

Peter Hsu

Peter Hsu is an editorial intern for 3DHEALS.  He is currently an undergraduate at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and studies bioengineering with a focus on cell and tissue engineering.  He is also minoring in computer science with interests in artificial intelligence and image processing.  Peter conducts research on using computer vision methods to analyze human tissue images and improve the robustness of machine learning workflows.  He is interested in the use of AI to assist tissue engineering and bioprinting research for medical applications.  He is passionate about science communication and leads STEM outreach lessons at schools in the central Illinois area.

Related Links:

Event Recap: 3D-Printed Devices In Orthopedics

Event Recap: Microfluidic Devices and 3D Printing

Expert Corner: AI in Healthcare 3D Printing: The Future is Now

Microfluidic Devices and 3D Printing (On Demand, 2025)

Event Recap: 3D Printed Pharmaceuticals

The post Communicating Your Science in the Bioprinting Space appeared first on 3DHeals.

At our first hybrid event of the year in San Francisco, we gathered five brilliant innovators to discuss the future of medical 3D printing. Discover the latest advancements in AI and LLMs for 3D model creation, market growth for AR/VR technologies, the evolution of expandable implants, organoids for antibody discovery, and much more. But it isn’t just about the tech. What’s unique about these events is hearing from our speakers about the lessons learned from their experiences, offering strategies like thinking outside the box for orthopedics, applying evidence-based innovation for innovators and investors, and embracing the beauty in simplicity for 3D printing at commercial scales. These key takeaways will inspire and guide those looking to stay ahead in the ever-evolving medical 3D printing landscape. Here’s a recap of the virtual event presentations, which you can now watch on-demand through 3DHEALS Courses. Stay tuned for Jenny’s take on the in-person part of this event.

Where AR/VR and AI cross paths

Making anatomical 3D models using ChatGPT? It might be a bit of a stretch now, but that’s something that Dr. Jesse Courtier thinks is on the horizon. Dr. Courtier, a pediatric radiologist and founder of UCSF spinout Sira Medical, showed us how to use large-language models to create 3D models in visualization software. Ask Claude for a 3D femur bone in Blender, then sit back and relax as your custom model is built before your eyes. Dr. Courtier points out that such software could one day be used to turn radiology reports into 3D models for teaching purposes and patient education. This could make 3D visualization more accessible and easier to use without requiring extensive experience in using CAD software to create a custom model. While the Claude tool that Courtier found didn’t produce the kind of high-quality femur that you’d expect for teaching future surgeons, the vague semblance of a bone that appeared on the screen still holds promise that more significant investments in AI for anatomical 3D model creation might produce more realistic models in the future. Forward-thinking entrepreneurs and researchers are needed to tailor AI specifically for the 3D field.

Taking these AI-generated models into AR/VR headsets for an immersive experience has incredible potential to enhance student training and improve patient education. Dr. Courtier is optimistic: with over 980 million USD invested in the past decade for this field, the AR/VR market is expected to grow by 30-35% (CAGR) between 2024-2029. Dr. Courtier’s company, Sira Medical, recently received FDA 510(k) clearance for its AR preoperative planning software, and there’s hope that AI will help to open even more doors for innovations to enter the market.

Thinking outside the box

The passion and drive of our speakers are undeniable. While Josh Mikulich may not be an engineer by training, he’s a visionary. Mikulich, Director of Spine Sales at Evolution Surgical, described how he gravitated towards the 3D-printed spine space early in his journey out of genuine interest for the field. While there was skepticism in those days around shifting from PEEK to 3D-printed titanium, Mikulich dived deeper and stuck with his vision that 3D printing would be significant. He started his independent distributorship, launched the first 3D-printed guide for hip surgery at Stanford, and brought 3D-printed products to the US market through his work with Anatomics. Mikulich is what we mean when we talk about leaders in 3D medical printing: it takes incredible ambition and a willingness to learn beyond one’s boundaries to break into this field.

Mikulich shared his takes for the future of 3D printing, specifically for spine. He’s looking at expandable implants — devices inserted between the spinal vertebrae to fill the space for a spinal fusion — and the variety of solutions that have appeared. Early expandable interbody devices included stackable wafers that fill the space like a stack of books and ramps that wedge between the vertebrae at an angle. Now, the expandable landscape is turning to cam-driven devices that expand in two planes to fill the space much better and balloons that can be filled with graft. However, he encourages us to think outside the box and really toy with ideas not yet seen in the area. For example, he shares that maybe the future of spine fusions could be expandable foam devices with a lattice structure that fit perfectly in the space, like a deformable memory foam mattress, or cage structures that expand using hinges.

Mikulich also talked about the potential opportunities for using 3D printing to manufacture disposable surgical tools that reduce the burden of sterile processing and enable a ready supply of tools to avoid surprises if an instrument gets lost. There’s still much to explore in using 3D printing for anatomical simulators to demonstrate a product on fake tissue and bone, especially when cadavers can’t be used or are too expensive to be practical, such as quick demos for trade show booths. For those who think outside the box, 3D printing is much more than just another way to make the same implants and guides on the market.

Evidence-based innovation

Reducing people’s salaries isn’t an option, so how do we cut hospital costs? Dr. Kuan-Lin Chen shares that reducing the length of a patient’s stay at the hospital is a key avenue worth pursuing. Dr. Chen, an orthopedic surgeon and medical advisor at AMED Ventures, notes that the length of stay for total hip arthroplasties has significantly decreased from more than 1 week to about 1 day in recent years, which is encouraging considering that each day has a high cost of 3,000 USD. How do we manage the increased caseload at outpatient surgical centers, and how do we shift more procedures to these outpatient centers?

Dr. Chen points out that large companies such as Zimmer Biomet are already expanding their reach in the area by acquiring Paragon 28, a company with large ASC experience. Arthrex is advancing endoscopic spine surgery to increase minimally-invasive procedures and others are creating robot-assisted surgical systems to move the field towards automation.

Further advancements are needed to continue reducing costs, and bringing 3D printing into the equation might open up some solutions, especially rapid, point-of-care 3D printing. One method Dr. Chen uses to evaluate new solutions is evidence-based innovation, ensuring that the innovation is supported by clinical need. It’s essential to ensure that the problem a new technology addresses isn’t caused by some other factor lurking in the background, such as the problems with surgical protocol used or poor case selection rather than pitfalls with current technology. Dr. Chen also encourages innovators to find contradictions in their designs, which means determining the expense when changing the traditional approach to the new solution and understanding whether that’s an expense people are willing to make. In many cases, that means not giving up on the speed of use. Newer solutions might bring fancy features, but it isn’t going to be adopted if they make the process longer.

Simple is better

With such a large parameter space involved in 3D bioprinting, simple is better. Bhushan Mahadik, Director of Research at Prellis Biologics, urges innovators to consider whether 3D printing is necessary to address a problem. Just because we can use 3D printing to make a solution more complex doesn’t mean that it has a high chance of working, especially since 3D-printed products can be difficult to manufacture on a commercial scale.

One area in which 3D bioprinting is well suited to address the complexity of the problem is antibody discovery. Mahadik shared how Prellis Biologics uses two-photon lithography printing to fabricate scaffolds for growing human cells. Specifically, they’re using these scaffolds to produce organoids that mimic the lymph nodes, enabling them to use cells in vitro to generate antibodies as potential therapeutics.

Rajan Patel also agrees that simple is better. As CEO of Kallisio, Patel shows how the company makes a device that addresses the side effects of radiation therapy simply by separating the healthy and cancerous tissue using a physical barrier. The 3D-printed device is placed in the mouth, protecting the tongue and other healthy tissue from radiation. 3D printing enables them to create devices specific to the patient’s anatomy, and they’ve optimized the process to be done within 3 days. Scanning done on day 1, design and printing automations done on day 2, and the 3D-printed device ready on day 3 for the patient. Patel points out that this was a big challenge for them, but it was the kind of speed they needed for oncology.

Lessons to live by

Our speakers share the lessons they’ve learned along their journeys, and as we navigate this world of 3D printing and AI, their experiences are invaluable. Subscribe to 3DHEALS to join us live for future online and in-person events.

About the Author: 

Peter Hsu is an editorial intern for 3DHEALS.  He is currently an undergraduate at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and studies bioengineering with a focus on cell and tissue engineering.  He is also minoring in computer science with interests in artificial intelligence and image processing.  Peter conducts research on using computer vision methods to analyze human tissue images and improving the robustness of machine learning workflows.  He is interested in the use of AI to assist tissue engineering and bioprinting research for medical applications.  He is passionate about science communication and leads STEM outreach lessons at schools in the central Illinois area.

Related Links:

Event Recap: 3D Printing for Veterinarian Medicine
Event Recap: Revolutionizing Pet Care With 3D

Event Recap: 3D Microfabrication
Event Recap: 3D Bioprinting Biofabricating Skin Components
Revolutionizing 3D-Printed Facial Titanium Implants Polishing

Event Recap: 3D Printed Devices In Orthopedics

The post Event Recap: San Francisco 3D Printing and Bioprinting for Health appeared first on 3DHeals.

Did someone say dogs?! It’s 3DHEALS’ veterinary 3D printing event, and we’ve had a blast learning from a fantastic panel of veterinary 3D experts. Our speakers are passionate about using 3D printing to get their veterinary patients up and running again. It’s been truly incredible to see some of the results they’ve achieved with their patients, and we’re happy to see how far the field has gone. Here’s a recap of what happened during our event, which you can now watch on-demand through 3DHEALS Courses.

Surgical planning is the key challenge in veterinary 3D printing

Our speakers are turning dreams into reality, and one of them is no stranger to turning his ideas into tangible solutions for veterinary patients using the power of computer-aided design (CAD) software. Bill Oxley, an orthopedic veterinary surgeon who founded Vet3D back in 2015, is focusing on how surgeons can harness CAD software not only to get the designs they want but also to achieve effective surgical planning. Oxley’s message for us was this: while it isn’t necessarily easy to create a model such as a surgical guide in CAD software, 3D surgical planning is the big challenge to overcome. He showed us that he’s been creating 3D-printed models since 2014, and, in many of his past cases, he’s achieved great accuracy in creating 3D-printed surgical guides, even though the prints might be seen as primitive by today’s standards. It’s instead the surgical planning process using CAD that he wants to help surgeons better utilize in their practice.

Oxley notes that deciding where and how to cut the bone during a surgical procedure using CAD software can be tricky. The challenge lies in performing 3D deformity assessments and analyzing the models to decide how to perform the surgery so that surgeons can achieve the best outcome possible for their patients. However, the rewards can be immense with just the right expertise in leveraging CAD for surgical planning. Oxley showed a dog named Rolo with an injured carpus and limb deformity that required the fusion of the joints. Without CAD and 3D-printed surgical guides, this surgery would have been complicated to plan and figure out how actually to cut and fuse the bones. Oxley demonstrated how they used CAD software to plan the surgery, including figuring out the right screw trajectories and designing a guide for pre-drilling holes, and making cuts that would allow for the easy positioning of a plate. They ultimately achieved a straight leg due to the pre-surgical planning stage, and the dog was able to heal quickly through the use of guides.

Watch another of Oxley’s cases below, where he dramatically changed the life of a Great Dane who had osteosarcoma using a custom plate:

3D printing is more than just purchasing CAD software and expecting the puzzle pieces to fall into place. Finding out how best to interact with these 3D technologies really seals the deal. For Oxley, consulting fellow surgeons by using 3D surgical planning to maximize the benefit for the patient is helping the veterinary field grow to new heights. If we want 3D technologies to succeed, we need to think about how we’re going to train people in a time-effective manner, how to make it easier for practitioners to integrate it in their existing workflow, and how we’ll provide support when people need help along the way. Oxley is one of those people who’s making that change by focusing on the people and veterinary patients involved, not just what comes out the printer.

Human vs. veterinary standards: the pros and cons

How can we keep pushing the boundaries of veterinary care? For Mateusz Pawlik, it isn’t just about creating more 3D-printed products but also the standards we uphold when we do it. Pawlik, co-founder of CABIOMEDE, believes that the production of veterinary 3D-printed implants should follow human medical device standards even if there aren’t laws for it. Pawlik notes that safety regulations found in human medicine, such as the requirements put forth by ISO, FDA, and MDR, are not present in veterinary medicine since the veterinary field is sometimes seen as more on the agricultural side rather than medical. He describes how his company follows the standards found in human medicine, such as performing biocompatibility testing, fatigue testing, and precision manufacturing. Rather than telling veterinary surgeons to use the product without any assurance of safety, companies who follow these standards can establish trust with their surgeons that the product was made with quality patient care in mind.

Of course, regulations come with their pros and cons. Without strict obligations, veterinary 3D companies don’t have to worry about the innovation process being slowed down. However, for Pawlik, it’s the integrity of the company and his commitment to doing the right thing even at further costs that can make a company stand out. Building strong relationships with veterinary clinicians is critical, especially since the 3D printing process involves the expertise of CAD engineers, printing technicians, materials researchers, and manufacturers — all of whom now become deeply interconnected with the patient’s care. If we want 3D printing to take on a larger role in veterinary medicine, we should consider how self-imposed validation and safety checks can help increase confidence among everyone involved, bringing people together to more frequently consider 3D printing as a solution and providing assurance to patients of successful outcomes in the long-term.

Imaging quality is what we need

Quality results for patients means giving it the best you’ve got from the very beginning. For Luca Manassero, that means capturing quality CT images for 3D printing workflows. Manassero, a DVM and now a PhD student in Veterinary Sciences at the University of Turin, points out that collaboration is an important part of this process and that it takes everyone — radiologists, surgeons, and engineers — to obtain the desired imaging results to get the job done right. Obtaining quality CT images is important for achieving good segmentation results, which will ultimately be used in the formation of 3D CAD models for designing patient-specific devices. That’s why it’s key for imaging technologists and specialists to be aware of how the images they take will impact downstream tasks. For example, artifacts in the CT images can be created when the patient moves from breathing which can make it harder for engineers and surgeons to design surgical guides down the road.

It also takes ingenuity in the veterinary field given the diversity of species that a clinic might encounter. In the clip below, Manassero shares some examples of the considerations imaging specialists must make when dealing with different patient anatomies to obtain the images desired.

Educating the next veterinary 3D specialists

As 3D printing technology evolves, the training of both experienced veterinary professionals and students will be crucial to keep 3D printing moving forward in this field. Manassero notes that from his perspective in Italy, 3D printing in veterinary education is mostly limited to a small batch of interested students. For Oxley, it’s the advanced levels in veterinary education where it makes sense for 3D printing to come up, especially for 3D printing’s utility in complex cases. For 3D printing to thrive in veterinary care, companies and educational institutions need to consider how we can make 3D printing more accessible while still being introduced at an appropriate time for students.

One such company that’s making 3D printing within reach for many is Materialise. Bradley Tumas, an Account Manager for Materialise, describes how the company creates end-to-end solutions for the 3D printing process, allowing users to perform automated segmentation with AI, generate 3D models, and design devices within their software. It goes without saying that this kind of CAD software is a powerful tool for engineers and clinicians who want to focus on creating life-changing devices for their patients rather than building their workflows from scratch. Moving forward, there’s an exciting avenue for 3D innovators to think about how they can contribute to bringing others into this space. How do we provide the necessary tools and training to not only teach others on how to use this technology but also pass along the experience that speakers such as Oxley have gained from understanding the problems and peculiarities of how to make surgical guides? What kinds of training can we make that are veterinary-specific and aware of the cases encountered in the clinic? And how can we make it easier for others to get started in 3D?

The future of veterinary 3D

The future of veterinary 3D is truly bright: Sinan Ulusan, a veterinary orthopedic surgeon and founder of Travmavet and Vimics, shared the variety of cases that his companies and collaborators have been able to reach in the veterinary field. Ulusan describes some of the incredible cases in the clip below and explains that he’s using CNC and additive manufacturing in harmony to create his products.

What is truly special about this speaker panel is the emphasis on collaboration in veterinary 3D printing. We’re venturing into the unknown of discovering how 3D printing can play a role in the veterinary field and tackling the challenges that come along the way. The innovators who will find success are bringing people from different backgrounds together — engineers, technologists, surgeons, researchers, regulatory experts, and more — to address the needs of veterinary medicine.

We hope to see you at our future events live to hear from all these different perspectives and engage in the conversation. Subscribe to 3DHEALS to stay up-to-date.

About the Author: 

Peter Hsu is an editorial intern for 3DHEALS.  He is currently an undergraduate at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and studies bioengineering with a focus on cell and tissue engineering.  He is also minoring in computer science with interests in artificial intelligence and image processing.  Peter conducts research on using computer vision methods to analyze human tissue images and improving the robustness of machine learning workflows.  He is interested in the use of AI to assist tissue engineering and bioprinting research for medical applications.  He is passionate about science communication and leads STEM outreach lessons at schools in the central Illinois area.

Related Links:

Event Recap: Revolutionizing Pet Care With 3D

Event Recap: 3D Microfabrication
Event Recap: 3D Bioprinting Biofabricating Skin Components
Revolutionizing 3D-Printed Facial Titanium Implants Polishing

Event Recap: 3D Printed Devices In Orthopedics

The post Event Recap: 3D Printing for Veterinarian Medicine appeared first on 3DHeals.

Last Thursday, we hosted a conversation with leading innovators and scientists in 3D printing for orthopedics. What makes these discussions so valuable is the inside look into how the field has progressed in the past couple of years and the challenges our influencers face on the technical, regulatory, and user adoption fronts. Here’s a quick read on what went down during our event to bring you up to speed. You can now watch the event on-demand through 3DHEALS Courses.

The future of orthopedics: 3D-printed solutions for every part of the body

What if orthopedic surgeons could 3D print every implant they could ever need? No more one-size-fits-all. It’s a bit of an idealistic prospect but innovators such as Nathan Evans are envisioning a future where 3D printing plays a bigger role in orthopedic medicine. Evans is the Senior Vice President of Product Development at restor3d, a company that’s looking to make orthopedic implants more personalized to better meet specific patient needs. Evans brings up a key observation of where the field is headed: the spine (especially spinal fusions) is where 3D printing has found its forte but applications to other areas of the body are still under development. Lower extremity implants are growing, upper extremity implants (such as those for the shoulder) are still in their infancy, and trauma cases are lagging behind.

Falling behind in the trauma area is concerning because there is immense potential for 3D printing to take trauma care by storm, fabricating devices exactly contoured to a patient’s unique injury and anatomy. Evans describes how restor3d encountered a severe trauma case involving a defect in the distal tibia. The surgeons could have used the traditional screws and plates to patch up the defect, but it would have been difficult. In cases like this one, where the options are limited, patient-specific implants can save the day by avoiding amputation or subpar off-the-shelf solutions and giving surgeons and patients the confidence that the best solution for the problem was taken. restor3d has created solutions with this in mind and has made implants for many parts of the body not often sought out by others in the industry, opening up its customer base and expertise beyond spinal problems.

However, Evans notes that 3D printing shouldn’t be considered a solution only for niche orthopedic applications where the problem is so severe or unique that no off-the-shelf device on the market could be used effectively. We’ll severely limit its potential if we keep thinking of 3D printing as a fringe technology. 3D printing shouldn’t be a “desperate times call for desperate measures” but rather an opportunity to provide better outcomes than traditional devices. Evans shows us that while big-name orthopedic companies offer a few different dimensions for knee implants, there is still a vast number of patients with common knee measurements who aren’t getting an implant that exactly matches their needs. If we want better outcomes, we must have the “can I get it just a little bit smaller?” option rather than saying “close enough.”

Accessibility is everything

When Kuntay Aktas started out with electron beam melting (EBM) in the past, the technology was considered efficient and cheaper than other techniques for metal printing. Now, Aktas points out that selective laser melting (SLM) is more reliable, easier to use, and more cost-effective. Making 3D printing of different orthopedic implant materials more accessible is a key focus for Aktas, an experienced entrepreneur with a background in engineering who has co-founded TrabTech, a company using additive manufacturing for orthopedic implants.

Ideally, we’d see a world where custom orthopedic implants made from just the right materials are printed at the point of care (POC) with a simple button. However, Aktas notes there can be challenges with manufacturing titanium devices using 3D printing, with the company looking into titanium alloys and other alternatives. Materials other than titanium hold promise, such as magnesium, but face their barriers. Magnesium, while biodegradable, is hard to work with due to its explosive nature. Exploring new materials in the orthopedics area is a worthwhile endeavor to push the boundaries of what’s possible. Still, it won’t get the traction it needs if the groundbreaking material can’t be easily manufactured using POC printers or the process is so complicated that it can’t be streamlined.

Overcoming the regulatory and cost barriers

At medical 3D printing’s core is the promise of patient-specific implants, but patient-specificity is no easy feat on the technical, financial, and regulatory fronts. Even though customizable implants offer a larger parameter space to fit the patient’s needs, boundaries must still be set to meet regulatory requirements. Evans describes how such 3D-printed devices must have a design envelope to define the limits of what can be reliably fabricated. The added complication is that rather than demonstrating a single worst-case scenario to regulatory agencies, patient-specific devices may have several worst cases, making the regulatory process more expensive and complicated.

Navigating the complexities of patient specificity will continue to be a tough challenge for the industry. Investments in better computational models and using artificial intelligence to provide in silico evidence may shed light on the problem and bring down both the time and monetary costs. However, it will take a leap of faith by scientists, entrepreneurs, funding sources, and surgeons to see that the effort is worth it to continue advancing care for patients with more personalized solutions. Maintaining the status quo for certain conditions in favor of off-the-shelf products will detriment to patient health, leading to subpar outcomes and expensive revision surgeries.

Aside from worst-case scenarios, Kyle Kovach, Quality and Regulatory Manager at JALEX Medical, says that companies should look out for other challenges regarding the premarket submission of their 3D-printed devices. Having the adequate details needed to describe the additive manufacturing process, conducting the necessary performance tests and tests specific to 3D printed parts, addressing residual material on the device, and validating the build process are all key, especially when the FDA’s perspective on 3D printing is continuing to evolve, and reviewer subjectivity comes into play.

A lot of questions are still in the air surrounding the current state of regulations. What will the delays look like regarding FDA approval? Will the quality of FDA review change if there is decreased staffing? How will things change when European companies seek FDA approval to avoid the challenges associated with MDR? One can speculate, but we will all be on the lookout.

And don’t forget the post-processing!

Kovach also raises the point that process validation for 3D-printed devices and proper handling of residual material on manufactured devices are essential factors to address in the regulatory process. Companies must show that they can consistently reproduce their prints across build cycles to ensure that quality doesn’t waver from patient to patient. An essential aspect of maintaining a high-quality product is paying attention to the post-processing steps, which Garren Angacian shares, which are an important strength area for Himed, a company that produces calcium phosphate-based biomaterials. Angacian, the Engineering Manager at Himed, describes how loosely adhered or partially molten beads can be present on titanium 3D printed products, such as acetabular cups, potentially leading to the loosening of the prosthesis and release of titanium into the body. Aluminum oxide blasting to remove the beads can leave behind undesired aluminum oxide residues, whereas the company’s apatitic abrasive leaves behind a nice, clean surface.

What we’re thinking

Mirroring the sentiment from our speakers, patient-specific 3D-printed orthopedic devices promise to improve care for both typical and special cases. However, companies will have to make the case that patient specificity is worth it, even though they will be at odds with the lack of insurance reimbursement for certain custom products, higher costs and turnaround times, a trickier regulation landscape, and reluctance to move away from current methods. Customized printing settings using AI and new biomaterials add even more complexity to the mix. However, the innovators in medical 3D printing, such as our 3DHEALS speakers, have been riding the train of unpredictability for some time. The 3D printing industry has taken off unexpectedly, with promising avenues to address unmet orthopedic care needs. Like much of our audience, we remain cautiously optimistic and hope you join us for the ride.

Subscribe to 3DHEALS and attend our future events live to engage in the conversation.

About the Author: 

Peter Hsu is an editorial intern for 3DHEALS.  He is currently an undergraduate at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and studies bioengineering with a focus on cell and tissue engineering.  He is also minoring in computer science with interests in artificial intelligence and image processing.  Peter conducts research on using computer vision methods to analyze human tissue images and improving the robustness of machine learning workflows.  He is interested in the use of AI to assist tissue engineering and bioprinting research for medical applications.  He is passionate about science communication and leads STEM outreach lessons at schools in the central Illinois area.

Related Links:

Event Recap: Revolutionizing Pet Care With 3D

Event Recap: 3D Microfabrication
Event Recap: 3D Bioprinting Biofabricating Skin Components
Revolutionizing 3D-Printed Facial Titanium Implants Polishing

The post Event Recap: 3D Printed Devices In Orthopedics appeared first on 3DHeals.

In 2024, we interviewed dozens of founders, scientists, and innovators in medical 3D printing. During these interviews, we asked them what kind of challenges were specific to the industry they were facing and what potential solutions could be. While these are complex problems to solve, they also showed us where future opportunities lie and where the next generation of hardware, software, materials, and talents could be found. We have published a few selected excerpts from these interviews, but you can also follow the link and read their full interview directly.

Medical 3D Printing

“The biggest challenges are:

Scalability and Cost: 

Scaling up production and reducing costs for 3D printed products, especially in healthcare applications, is a significant challenge. Making these technologies more accessible requires overcoming economic barriers and obtaining for patient outcome data. 
Potential Solution: Participation in the ACR-RSNA 3D Printing Registry, research into cost-effective materials and printing processes, and advancements in automation and optimization of production workflows can contribute to scalability and cost reduction. Public-private partnerships and strategic investments can also promote progress in this area.

Regulatory and Ethical Concerns: 

The regulatory landscape for 3D printing, particularly in the medical field, is continually evolving. Ensuring the safety and efficacy of 3D-printed products is a complex challenge.
Potential Solution: Establishing clear regulatory frameworks, ethical guidelines, and standards for 3D printing technologies can help navigate these challenges. Collaboration between regulatory bodies, industry stakeholders, and ethicists is crucial to developing comprehensive and responsible regulations.

Material Limitations: 

The range of materials available for 3D printing is currently limited. Finding suitable biocompatible materials that mimic the complexity and functionality of biological tissues remains a challenge.
Potential Solution: Ongoing research and development of innovative material compositions can expand the capabilities of 3D printing and bioprinting. Collaboration between materials scientists, biologists, and engineers is essential for progress.”

–Dr. Yu-Hui Huang, Radiologist

“One of the biggest challenges in 3D printing for us is meeting short turnaround times for
patients who have surgery within days of their scan because they’re from out of town.
Compounding on that challenge is that while getting imaging done in their
hometown may make sense, the quality may not meet our standards. The next best
option is optimizing the imaging ordering workflow so that any 3D print needed for surgery in
less than a week is flagged as STAT.”

–Chris LeCastillo, Innovations Manager of the Stanford 3D and Quantitative Imaging Laboratory

Design/Software

“There are so many open challenges in this space, so I’ll speak to the familiar—lattices and generative design. There are a number of CAD tools available now that offer amazing capabilities for designing with complex and smart geometries. The challenge now is often creating the most appropriate and effective means to create them additively. Each type of printing carries with it its own set of “best approaches” for setting up designs, types and properties of printed materials that can be printed, and overall pros and cons of use. The same geometry printed on different types of printers will have vastly different results. Some designs may not even be printable on particular machines. Our team agrees that much research needs yet to be done to decide what kinds of geometries, or design alterations to geometries, are best to print on what type of printer and with what type of settings. I think there will be no shortage of jobs for researchers in this area over the next few years. “

—Jade Myers , Researcher/Faculty, RIT

“As everyone knows, there are plenty of challenges in 3D printing and bio-printing. A focus for me, of course, is on the mathematical and geometric challenges. At Metafold we’ve seen this come in two flavours:

1. You have data, and you need shapes.
   Usually, this starts with a performance target—for example, optimized structures for the osseointegration of an orthopedic implant. Your chosen printing method imposes certain design constraints (overhangs, supports, etc.). Finally, there is some physics that you care about—mechanical loading and fluid flow for our example. The question is: What SHAPE will satisfy all these requirements (targets, constraints, physics)?
   This is not an easy problem, and the answer is geometry.
2. You have shapes, and you want data.
   The other flavour begins with geometry, and asks for insight about the shape. For example, if you hand me a CAD file, what can I tell you about it? What manufacturing process should we use to make it (this goes beyond additive)? Where are the holes? What are the notable or defining geometric features? This kind of analysis is surprisingly hard to do with classical CAD which is why we have a different approach.

​Metafold‘s delivers geometric capabilities via API to solve tough design, simulation, automation and commercialization challenges with our customers. We really focus on the ways that geometry gets in the way of engineers being innovative, and use our technology to clear the path.”

—Elissa Ross, CEO & Co-founder Metafold3D

3D Printed Prosthetics and Wearables

“Challenges specific to our industry are the cost and strength of the materials. In dealing with orthotic devices, you are competing against traditionally manufactured devices that are assembled at massive scales overseas and from durable materials, such as metal or carbon fiber. We have been able to compete in certain niches by differentiating our product, offering substantially improved outcomes through the unique functionality of our device, and leveraging software to automate the design and manufacturing process. As technology advances and as competitors enter the industrial 3D printing space, the hope is that the baseline costs of industrial printing will come down in the future. Until then, it is important to position our products based on value and service rather than price. “

—Evan Eckersley, COO, co-founder Icarus Medical Innovations

“Overcoming the CAD hurdle, and making prints that are safe, functional, and considered
acceptable by the patient. It’s a classic engineering design triangle, you can usually only pick 2! If
it’s safe and functional, it’s likely too bulky for the patient. If the device is functional and used by
the patient, then I lose sleep wondering if/when it’s going to break. We have just scratched the
surface of CAD in O&P, and very few have ventured down the path of simulation, but I think
accurately constrained simulation will help us design safe AND functional devices.”

–Drew Meyer, MSPO, CPO

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 💡Healthcare 3D Printing💡 (@3dheals)

Tissue Engineering

“Each 3D printing modality has its own strengths and limitations in terms of material selection, structural integrity, and design flexibility. For instance, extrusion 3D printing allows for a wide range of biomaterials but can restrict the design flexibility of the part to be printed. Implementation of sacrificial material could be a solution, it can make the printing process more complicated and has an adverse effect on the printed part quality. Selective laser sintering (SLS) modality can offer better structural integrity and design flexibility for the printed parts, but it has limited material selectivity. For the present, the key is selecting the appropriate 3D printing modality based on specific needs.

Although 3D printing has opened new possibilities, the quality of printed parts still does not yet match that of traditional manufacturing methods. Continuous research efforts are required for each 3D printing modality to address current limitations and enhance the quality of printed parts. This is particularly crucial for ensuring proper quality control, especially in clinical translations.”

–Dr. Jeong Hun Park

“There is no doubt that bioprinting has contributed to several advances in the field. The biggest challenge in bioprinting lies in the complexity of creating functional and viable constructs that can accurately mimic native tissues and organs. This involves addressing several key factors, including development of suitable multiculture systems, the precise incorporation of different cell types, optimization of cell concentrations, and selection of appropriate biomaterials among many other challenges. One potential solution to these challenges lies in advancing our understanding of tissue engineering principles and refining the techniques used in bioprinting. This includes further research into cell biology, biomaterial science, and tissue biomechanics to better replicate the intricate microenvironment of native tissues. Additionally, the development of advanced bioprinting technologies, such as multi-material printing and organ-on-a-chip systems, holds promise for enhancing the complexity and functionality of bioprinted constructs. By fostering partnerships and sharing knowledge across diverse fields, we can collectively overcome the challenges associated with bioprinting.”
–Dr. Mohammad Albanna, CEO Humabiologics

“Bioprinting is still in its early stages. Growing cells in safe and biocompatible materials with specific attributes depending on the application is hard. That’s the challenge we’re trying to help overcome, providing absorbable polymers with tunable physical, mechanical, and biological properties and controllable hydrolysis rate.”

–Dr. Rao Bezwada, CEO Bezwada Biomedical

“ Extrusion-based 3D bioprinting must show more compelling data to justify the many billions of R&D dollars and over a decade of intensive research.”

–Prof. Paul Dalton

” I’ve been delighted to see advances related to integrated parameter controls such as temperature controlled stages, imaging, and multiple printhead options but I think a remaining challenge in bioprinting is related to size resolution of printing complex, functional and viable tissues in their stereotypical arrangements.”

–Dr. Meghan Samberg, Chief Developement Officer, Stemson Therapeutics

Dental 3D Printing

“I think the biggest challenge to any of these technologies is widespread adoption. It takes a certain market threshold to produce a return on the R&D investment, and that doesn’t always happen, even when the technology is good for the world. It takes a mixture of cost, quality and convenience to make the case to the mass market. With 3D printing in dentistry, it’s only now catching on in a major way because the original “quality” factor is now mixed with the competitive pricing and appealing ROI calculations as well as the simple user experiences that are now more and more automated. In my opinion, continuing to showcase the multivariate value proposition that continues to intersect the declining cost-curve that has prevented many from adopting 3D printing yet. It’s only a matter of time that every dentist realizes that there are 15 new reasons to buy into 3D printing…which now costs 15 times lest than it did 15 years ago.”

–Dr. Andrew Johnson

“The challenges are:

1. The material for each use case
2. The complete digital ecosystem (data acquisition – CAD – 3D printing)
3. The doctor mental capacity to learn how to use the 3D printing & design
4. The economics 

Solutions: 1. More serious development of materials or the strategic option between materials, software, and hardware manufacturers. 
2. Vertical integration between scanner, CAD, 3D printing. And also offering that through system integrator channel partner not offering each piece separately
3. AI and automation to make the 3D printing easier to use/adopt for doctors
4. ROI calculator for the medical practice before building the product”

–Ahmed Adel, CEO & co-founder Zylo3D

Biomaterials

“Medical 3D printing can be used to create patient-specific medical devices.  This unique and custom approach provides apparent advantages for patients, but it also creates challenges in the creation of these devices, such as:  

1. What is the best way to regulate these devices for safety and patient design flexibility?  
2. How can the timeline for custom devices be shortened so that patients with acute injuries may be treated?  “

–Esther Valliant, Scientist, Himed

“ In medical 3D printing, it has already achieved a big success worldwide, we are now waiting regulators in more countries to adapt to this new trend. There will still be a long way to go for bio-printing. Being good on journals doesn’t usually imply an easy success. The solution must demonstrate its efficacy at good marginal benefits. The industry and the end clients will take a long time to make bio-printing a new treatment routine. Someone must select an excellent medical indication, develop the first market-viable product, and try it clinically before talking about a booming bio-printing industry segment. “

–Wilson Wong, CEO Novus Life Sciences

Related Links:

Pitch3D: Most Innovative Medical 3D Printing Startups 2024

3DHEALS Influencer Interviews

3DHEALS Events

The post Challenges (& Opportunities) in Medical 3D Printing appeared first on 3DHeals.

A week ago, we successfully concluded our event focusing on 3D printing (and 3D technologies in general) in the orthotics and prosthetics industry. This is one of the most critical topics that defines our vision and achievements in healthcare 3D printing, and therefore 3DHEALS events revisit this annually. For our 2024 version, our unique expert panel covered almost every body part in the O&P industry. The speakers included clinicians, industrialists, marketers, and startup founders. Each speaker brought their unique journeys (often measured in decades), perspectives, and wishlist to the conversation. What is also worth mentioning was our audience for the live event. Our analytics dashboard showed surprisingly strong results from India, Denmark, and Canada, in addition to our US audience, among 40+ countries. We also had one of the highest percentages of clinicians signed up for the event, 15%, as opposed to typically less than 10%. (Your prosthetists care! )The beauty of the 3DHEALS panel is that it is a mix of structured education in a relatively short period (15 minutes or so) and organic reactions and conversations among the audience. I want to thank all of the speakers, as well as a very engaging audience, for participating in this event. This blog contains my thoughts after the event. Frankly, I felt a bit out-of-date during the virtual event because there were so many advancements since I last reviewed the industry. Therefore, this blog contains my opinions, which are not necessarily the truth, and I am open to critiques.

Sustainability (Money) First.

Many don’t prioritize money in work, especially in the healthcare industry, where we prioritize patient benefits over pocketbooks. While that is the right attitude, a realistic understanding of the economics of 3D printing adaptation is critical to building a sustainable clinical practice and business that will benefit more people for longer. Digital transformation takes a lot of analysis, planning, and forecasting. Different geographies, patient demographics, payor mix, reimbursement pathways, and other economic environments determine how a clinic or business adapts to the technology. Fortunately, many 3D printing vendors (such as HP, Inc.) have done much of the homework and approached their potential customers with data and charts to make such analysis easier. Nowadays, I doubt a conversation about 3D printing capex expenditures can start without a spreadsheet. The goal is clear: a sustainable pathway for long-term digital adoption for the masses and, ultimately, a complete replacement of traditional O&P practices. It is less about selling a printer and more about promoting a concept, a vision, and a smooth digital workflow that will increase our productivity by 10x.

Cooperation Is the Key.

Once upon a time, I fondly witnessed heated debates on EBM (Electron Beam Melting) versus SLM (Selective Laser Melting), which I suspect is still ongoing. While some of our speakers are obvious experts in specific 3D printing technologies (MJF, SLS, FDM, to name a few), there was a strong sense of cooperation. The mutual understanding is that this is not a zero-sum game, and everyone could create an excellent business case for the right patient and clinic. This is an early-stage industry, and 99% of the market is still up for grabs. Therefore, the more immediate threat to survival is not a particular technique or machine manufacturer but common enemies like a lack of next-generation education, more accessible or updated reimbursement pathways, and sustainable business practices. This sense of cooperation will serve the industry well for the immediate future.

Digital Transformation On Demand

Software is essential (for 3D printing). Some obvious benefits include increasing productivity (especially in terms of personalization of devices), increasing access to better practices, and quicker product differentiation by embedding unique design advantages (mechanical properties, lightweight, manufacturing scalability, etc.). When we just founded 3DHEALS, I frequently heard complaints that clinical people had to adapt to industrial solutions for healthcare use because there was a lack of healthcare-specific 3D printing software solutions. That landscape is rapidly changing in the O&P industry and the medical and dental sectors. More and more larger companies are doubling down on focusing on healthcare-industry-specific software. Proteor, a 100+-year-old Frech O&P company (a company I did not know before our last event), is now a leading 3D printing software provider with a decent US market share in 3D printed devices. This ambition was there 20 years ago. This tells me the probability of O&P moving away from digital transformation is nearly zero, and those not using this should catch up. Something parallel to the dental and hearing aids industry and the orthopedic implant space.

The other digital transformation is happening in the startup landscape. Icarus Medical Innovation focuses on improving knee osteoarthritis care. While it uses 3D printing as core manufacturing technology, the company invested early and heavily in software, including a patient-facing iPhone-based 3D scanning app, and automated the device’s design process. This shift of emphasis on optimizing the software to improve the workflow and bottom line is becoming increasingly popular. Buy a half million machine first, or a 50K software tool to increase half a million dollar efficiency? You do the math. This makes sense the many OEMs are also increasingly acquiring software startups and then re-offer these as a bundle to their customers.

2025 Forecasts:

Based on the final remarks of our speakers, here are some 2025 predictions for 3D printed O&P, and it would be fun to revisit these predictions by the end of next year:

• More clarified CTP code, reimbursement pathway for 3D printed O&P products
• New in-office, smaller footprint industry-quality 3D printers using a variety of techniques such as SLS
• New material selections (including metamaterials) for 3D-printed O&P devices

What do you predict?

Email me here: jennychen@3dheals.com

You can now watch this recording on-demand for a few weeks until December 12th (when we host our next event).  Please take a look at the instructions below. After Dec 12th, you can find this recording for a fee on 3dheals.com. For those with short attention spans, we regularly publish highlights of the events on our YouTube channel.  The audio recording will also be available on our “The Lattice” podcast in a few days for more auditory-oriented people.  

Related Links:

Interview with Evan Eckersley: Icarus Medical Innovations

Interview with Drew Meyer: 3D Printing Orthotics and Prosthesis

Interview with Melanie Shelton: 3D printing adoption in O&P

Interview with Brent Wright: 3D Printed Orthotics and Prosthetics
Interview with Chris Baschuk: Partial Hand Prosthetics

3D Printed Orthotics and Prosthetics (On Demand, 2024)

3D Printing for O&P (On Demand 2023)

Biomaterials for 3D Printing Bioprinting (On Demand, 2024)

Past event recordings

The post 3DP for O&P: Are You Left Behind? appeared first on 3DHeals.

In this 3DHEALS event recap, we venture into the side of 3D bioprinting that features components at the micro- and nanometer scale.  Our panel of 3D microfabrication experts covered 3 different techniques — two-photon polymerization, projection micro stereolithography, and superluminescent light projection — and a wide range of applications, including cell scaffolds, microfluidics, and metallic structures.  Here are some of the highlights from our event earlier this year.

Two-photon polymerization (2PP) for cell scaffold fabrication

One of 3D printing’s core strengths is its customizability.  Methods for printing such as two-photon polymerization (2PP) are enabling this customization at the scale of cells and are changing the way we create in vitro models.  Among the growing number of use cases, researchers from Delft University of Technology have used 2PP printing to fabricate many tiny pillars either forming an array or covering a 3D cage scaffold for microglial cells to grow on.  These pillars, 0.2 micrometers in diameter and 2.5 micrometers in height, enabled them to influence the microglial cells, achieving higher proportions of the desired cell shapes.

Accelerating the creation of these 3D microglial scaffolds behind the scenes is Nanoscribe, and Dr. Benjamin Richter, the company’s Application Manager, talked to us about the tools helping to drive this research forward.

Nanoscribe develops a lineup of 2PP printers, achieving feature sizes down to 100 nanometers.  2PP is the use of a laser, such as that in the near-infrared, to solidify a resin.  Such laser beams can be controlled with rotating galvo mirrors and focused with an objective lens.  Users of the company’s Quantum X bio printer start with a CAD file, then load a substrate and resin for printing, and finally remove non-solidified material in post-processing.

Dr. Richter shared how they can print smooth cube scaffolds with organic pore shapes that provide favorable conditions for cell growth.  Due to 2PP printing’s high resolution, smooth surfaces can be obtained.  Such cubes can be used for a variety of applications, including cell culturing, tissue fabrication, and cell migration studies.

They can also print complex meshes with embedded capillary structures that have holes between 1 and 5 microns.  These mesh structures are designed as 350 x 175 x 175 micron subunits, which can be repeated and joined together to create larger tissue-like formations.

A clip from our event below shows these structures as well as how the company is using artificial intelligence to expand the 2PP design space.

Beyond cubic structures, Dr. Richter described how they can use their 2PP printers to create 3D mesh scaffolds 800 micrometers in height and 2 millimeters in diameter that fits within the small organoid wells of a microfluidic chip in 4 minutes.  These scaffolds can also be printed with a biodegradable material that degrades over time as the organoid grows.

They can also fabricate multi-material scaffolds, which can be time-consuming to align if done manually.  Now, the company’s printers can start the structure with a cell repelling resin (PEGDA) and perform automatic alignment using printed fiducial markers to subsequently apply a cell attractive resin (IP-S) at the precise position.

Projection micro stereolithography (PμSL) and microfluidic chips

Another key application of 3D microfabrication is the manufacturing of microfluidic chips to reliably grow in vivo-like tissues.  Here, we turn to Dr. Chunguang Xia, CTO and Co-Founder of Boston Micro Fabrication (BMF), who is using projection micro stereolithography (PμSL) to make these chips.

Unlike 2PP printing which solidifies its resin within a small spot-like focal volume where two photons are likely to be absorbed at the same time, PμSL creates a 2D image using ultraviolet light on resin.  Dr. Xia’s company BMF produces a series of PμSL printers with 2, 10, and 25 μm optical resolutions.  Their newer printers offer faster printing speeds by having their software analyze where to use a finer resolution and a lower resolution for the rest of the print.

Dr. Xia talked about the company’s A10 BioChip, a device with 70 channels to harbor the growth of tissue.  These 80-micron diameter channels feature pores of approximately 7 microns that allow for the movement of nutrients and waste.  Such material exchange enables the growth of larger tissue structures, avoiding the death of interior cells.  These chips open up opportunities for more cost- and time-effective drug and cosmetic testing.

They have shown that capillary perfusion within their microfluidic chips leads to the growth of thick and large colorectal HCT116 tumors compared to the lack of large tumor formation without such perfusion.  These cancer-on-a-chip technologies can help pave the way for new drug efficacy tests, adding to the options researchers have to study these cells in vitro.

Dr. Xia also mentioned their tests on growing human liver cells within the biochip.  After culturing for 7 days, these liver cells had greater viability compared to those grown in 2D.  As an example of overdose drug testing, they demonstrated that their perfused liver-on-a-chip model results in lower cell viability levels at different acetaminophen concentrations compared to 2D and static cultures.  Further research can then explore the use of this higher drug sensitivity to better simulate the toxicity of certain medications and their potential side effects in humans.

Superluminescent light projection (SLP) for nanoscale metallic structures

A critical consideration of 3D microfabrication techniques is the trade-off between resolution and cost.  Jungho Choi, a Ph.D. candidate in Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Tech, is developing techniques to break this trade-off, specifically for nanoscale metallic structures.

The microfabrication of functional metallic structures may one day prove useful for small devices in healthcare.  For example, electronics that adhere to the skin for patient monitoring and other biosensors will require specialized forms of cost-effective manufacturing.

Fabrication of nano-scale metallic structures remains a challenge: Choi pointed out that current techniques can only produce small volumes or are expensive.  A 30-micron resolution inkjet metal printer can cost more than 250,000 U.S. dollars.  Such costs may become a hurdle for low and medium-volume manufacturing.

In a clip from our event below, Choi talked about his work in creating a low-cost optical system using superluminescent light projection (SLP) that can create structures less than 250 nm.  Instead of a costly femtosecond laser employed in nanoscale printing, they use a significantly cheaper superluminescent light emitting diode (SLED) and create focused light spots using an objective lens.

Light from the SLED is reflected off a digital micromirror device, which is an array of many microscopic mirrors that can be switched on to form a spatial pattern, similar to selectively turning on pixels of a computer screen to create an image.  Light reflected from the activated mirrors is then passed through a collimating lens and then an objective lens, ultimately hitting the ink and forming the metal nanostructures.

They observed that by annealing their nanowires on a hot plate, the printed silver nanoparticles merge, increasing the contact area between them and achieving conductivity levels about 1/18th that of bulk silver, comparable to multi-photon photoreduction printing.  Choi is looking to build upon this work to create 3D features as well as perform multi-material prints with polymers in the future.

Join us for our future 3DHEALS events

3D microfabrication has immense potential for future applications, with avenues in Dr. Richter’s two-photon polymerization, Dr. Xia’s projection micro stereolithography, and Choi’s superluminescent light projection.  Techniques such as the ones featured by our panelists open up the world of micro- and nano-scale devices to 3D printing for healthcare.  To join our events live and stay up to date with 3D bioprinting, subscribe to receive updates for our upcoming webinars.

About the Author:

Peter Hsu

Peter Hsu is an editorial intern for 3DHEALS.  He is currently an undergraduate at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and studies bioengineering with a focus on cell and tissue engineering.  He is also minoring in computer science with interests in artificial intelligence and image processing.  Peter conducts research on using computer vision methods to analyze human tissue images and improving the robustness of machine learning workflows.  He is interested in the use of AI to assist tissue engineering and bioprinting research for medical applications.  He is passionate about science communication and leads STEM outreach lessons at schools in the central Illinois area.

Related Links:

3D Microfabrication 2.0 (On Demand, 2024)

3D Microfabrication: Medical Applications (On Demand, 2022)
3D Printing Organ on a Chip, Microfluidics Devices  (On Demand, 2023)

Event Recap: Point of Care 3D Printing
Event Recap: 3D Bioprinting Biofabricating Skin Components
Event Recap: Point of Care 3D Printing
Event Recap: 3D Printing and AI in Orthopedics
Event Recap: Innovation in Melt-Electrowriting (MEW) & 3D Printing

Event Recap: In Silico Simulation for Medtech and Biopharma

The post Event Recap: 3D Microfabrication appeared first on 3DHeals.