Jan 04, 2025 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:
- 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. - 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
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.”
“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.”
” 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.”
“The challenges are:
- The material for each use case
- The complete digital ecosystem (data acquisition – CAD – 3D printing)
- The doctor mental capacity to learn how to use the 3D printing & design
- 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:
- What is the best way to regulate these devices for safety and patient design flexibility?
- 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
Comments