Mar 06, 2025 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
Comments