AMS 2020: Panels on 3D Printing Materials and Applications for Dental Industry

At our recent Additive Manufacturing Strategies 2020 in Boston, co-hosted by SmarTech Analysis, many different topics were discussed in keynotes and panels, such as binder jetting, medical 3D printing, and different materials. Dental 3D printing was also a major topic of discussion at the event, and I attended three panels that focused on additive manufacturing for dental applications.

The first, “Into the dental and oral surgery office,” had three panelists: Dr.-Ing. Roland Mayerhofer, the Product Line Manager for Coherent/OR Laser; CEO Manager of Oral 3D Martina Ferracane; and Mayra Vasques, PhD, a dental prosthesis fellow at the University of São Paulo in Brazil.

Dr. Mayerhofer went first, and provided a quick overview of Coherent’s laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) systems, and the dental applications for which they can be used.

The versatile CREATOR is the company’s open system, and can print with multiple materials, such as brass, cobalt chromium, steel, and Inconel.

“As long as it works, you can put any powder in you want,” Dr. Mayerhofer said about the 3D printer.

He explained said that the CREATOR setup is “typical but can be as big as a stand-up fridge, not the American double-size.”

You can take a look at the rest of the printer specs above, along with a few features that will be added to the new system that’s coming in 2021, such as two powder hoppers and a build platform.

“Then you can take them out, put fresh hoppers in, and keep going,” Dr. Mayerhofer said.

He stated that the dental field is likely one of the first major adopters of metal additive manufacturing, as the technology offers 100% personalization and can fabricate small, complex parts out of existing materials, like titanium alloys…all perfect features for the dental industry.

Dr. Mayerhofer then discussed Coherent’s digital dental workflow, which can get from scanning to a completed 3D printed part in 12 steps. Some of these steps include designing the CAD file and preparing it for 3D printing in the company’s APP software suite.

Later process steps are annealing, and then sandblasting, support removal, polishing, ceramic coating – added manually – and voila, you have a finished product.

The Dental Cockpit is Coherent’s latest addition. The CAM software makes it easy to load and print parts, which means that the digital dental workflow as a whole is much less complex. There’s one click to select the file, another to choose the materials and properties, and then a final click to generate the G-code.

Dr. Mayerhofer said that Coherent’s whole dental workflow, 3D printing on the CREATOR include, takes just one work day to fabricate a completed bridge in the dental lab.

After the cast skeleton is scanned, the dental lab begins preparing the CAD data at 8 am. Then the print job has to be prepared in Dental Cockpit, and 3D printing typically begins in the morning.

Once the parts are removed from the print bed, post processing is completed, and then a porcelain coating is added before the product is subjected to heat treatment and polishing. The completed bridge is then ready to go by 4 pm.

Dr. Mayerhofer noted that a dental lab’s ROI on the CREATOR 3D printing system is less than a year…typically about six months, in fact.

Then it was Ferracane’s turn to explain how her company, Oral 3D, makes 3D printing simple for dentists, even as it’s occurring at the industrial level.

“Our solution makes it extremely simple for dentists to bring 3D printing to their practice,” she said.

She presented a brief overview of the US dental market, noting that some of the major applications for 3D printing in the field include aligners, crowns, surgical guides, and soft tissue models, which dentists use to test procedures ahead of time.

“Usually today, the way most of these models are done is through intraoral scanning,” she explained.

Ferracane said that SLA technology makes it much easier to make these soft tissue models. But, even so, they can still only be used for testing purposes most of the time.

3D printed models of hard tissue – bone – are also fabricated, but she said that they’re not used often, as it’s difficult for dentists to come up with STL files of just the hard tissue.

She pulled up a slide that had the world “PROBLEM” across the top. The image appears to be scan data of bone, which looks pretty hard to read.

“It’s not easy for dentists to make this into something printable by cleaning up the images,” Ferracane explained. “So they can pay to outsource it to labs to clean it up. But our 3D printing software automatically does this. Just drag the CT scan, and we’ll take care of changing it from DICOM to STL. With one click, we can then convert STL to G-code.”

She said that while it’s obviously good to fabricate dental applications this way using Oral 3D’s printer, it will work with whatever system you’re already using.

These 3D printed models serve a variety of purposes – they can improve communication with patients, help in treatment planning, and even “broaden learning.” Ferracane mentioned that the company has partnerships with NYU and Harvard for this last.

Other applications include bone blocks, made-to-measure titanium membranes, and maxillofacial surgery. Additionally, she stated that Oral 3D recently began collaborating with dental surgeons, who use the company’s 3D printed dental models for planning and patient communication.

She finished by stating that the company believes FDM printing can “be a good value add for dentists.”

Vasques finished things by sharing her research into how things look, dental 3D printing-wise, from the point of view of clinicians.

“It’s common for most to be scared of using 3D printing,” she explained. “They think it’s plug and play, and it’s not.”

For her research, she divided users into two separate groups – high level experience (seniors), and innovation (early adopters and students).

“We are trying to figure out how these people understand the technology,” she said.

High level users expect accuracy, efficiency, high quality technology, and high-performance materials for the purposes of chairside 3D printing. Vasques said that these users “don’t want to wait 2-3 hours to make products by hand.”

“In university, we’re trying to establish protocols and research to help these people have the results they are expecting.

“We’re trying to solve problems, like mouthguards for sports.”

Vasques said that last year, she and her team published three articles about dental 3D printing topics, such as 3D printed occlusal devices and post-processing. She launched INNOV3D the same year, in order to help train professors in using dental 3D printing.

“We have an online training platform, educational materials, and 3D lab,” she stated.

Once she finished and sat back down, Davide Sher, the panel’s moderator, asked the other two panelists how they would address the challenges that Vasques listed, and how they would make dentists understand more about dental 3D printing.

Ferracane answered that most dentists aren’t buying 3D printers today, because they’re initially taught that the systems are really easy to use when they’re not. Once they run into issues with SLA technology, they get frustrated and just start outsourcing the work instead.

“Then they’re really dissatisfied, because they’re complicated and not just plug and play. We need to help them understand that they can bring the technology back to their office.”

Sher noted that dentists don’t really have the time to learn about the more advanced types, and so asked if the companies directed their technology to users in dental labs; Dr. Mayerhofer said yes.

After a short break, the next session, “Dental lab experiences with 3D printing,” began. While Les Kalman, an Assistant Professor for Restorative Dentistry at Western University’s Schulich School of Medicine, was unable to make AMS 2020, Arfona founder and CEO Justin Marks and Sam Wainwright, Dental Product Manager for Formlabs, were both ready to go.

Marks went first, explaining that Arfona, founded in 2017 by dental technicians and 3D printing enthusiasts on “the core belief that thermoplastic dental materials should not be substituted for inferior photopolymers,” has been working to “bring 3D printing into the world of dentistry.” The company’s flagship product is its 3D printed flexible nylon dentures.

He pulled up a slide that cited research stating that 36 million Americans are completely edentulous, meaning without teeth, and that 178 million are partially edentulous. But even so, Marks said that there’s an “astronomical” number of people who are still not wearing dentures.

“Most people don’t think about this until it happens to you or someone you know,” he said about missing a tooth. “It’s not always that easy or cheap to fix this with implants.”

According to a survey, only 8% of dentures are digitally fabricated, which means most are still made by hand using analog methods.

Marks said that even though 3D printing is “becoming more of a buzzword” in the dental industry, most of the materials “have largely stayed the same,” and based on the same technologies and principles. Extrusion-based AM is not used often in dentistry, and powder bed fusion (PBF) is mostly limited to metals, not polymers.

Marks went through a brief history of 3D printing in dentistry. Ubiquitous applications include impression trays, digital models, and resin patterns for casting, while digital dentures are currently happening and things like clear aligners, temporary and long-term crowns and bridges, and multimaterial printing are in development for use in the future.

He said that the ubiquitous ones have one thing in common – they’re used once and then thrown away.

“We’re still not doing much with crowns and bridges,” Marks said. “Clear aligners are the holy grail, and direct printing of the aligner is still a ways off, though all companies are probably working on it.”

Aronfa’s dental 3D printer is the r.Pod, which is a modified version of a Makerbot clone. The dual extrusion filament system is optimized for all of the company’s thermoplastic materials.

Then it was Wainwright’s turn to talk about dental 3D printing at Formlabs. He agreed with Marks that “FDM and thermoplastics have an incredible place” in the dental industry.

When the company was founded in 2012, its goal was to make professional-scale 3D printing accessible and affordable for everyone. Now Formlabs employs over 500 people at its multiple locations around the world, and has sold more than 50,000 3D printers.

Wainwright explained that the Form 3B desktop printer, optimized for biocompatible materials, has many dental-specific features, materials, and software, in addition to automated washing and post-curing systems “to help tie in end-to-end dental workflows.”

In addition, Formlabs offers dental materials, and launched its dental service plan (DSP) along with the Form 3B in 2019. Because there are high demands, the 3D printing process is complex, and the DSP offers support.

“We are committed to 3D printing for dental,” Wainwright stated. “We have over 20 people in the dental business unit. But we have the resources of a 500 person-plus company.”

While most are made overseas, Formlabs Dental is now developing photopolymers in my home state, since the company acquired its main material supplier, Ohio-based Spectra Photopolymers, last year. Formlabs’ biocompatible Surgical Guide Resin is the company’s first material made in an ISO-certified facility.

“It’s exciting to have intimate control over design aspects,” Wainwright said.

The image above is an example of the Surgical Guide material. Wainright explained that the light touch supports are very easy to remove, which means that there isn’t a lot of time wasted in post-processing.

He said that 36% of dental labs in the US use 3D printing technology, which makes them very “cutting edge.”

“There’s a ton of market opportunity for dental to go digital,” he said. “We have 30% of this market – we’re the biggest player in dental laboratories and will continue to grow, but compared to Invisalign, it’s not really that much.”

So far, Formlabs has 3D printed more than 10,000,000 parts for the dental industry. Wainwright predicts that in ten years or less, “everything in dental will be 3D printed.”

He reiterated to the room that Formlabs has “a whole host of materials” for dental applications, four of which are solely for fabricating models, which are “really critical to dentists.” As dental offices adopt intraoral scanning technology, it’s helpful to take the scan data and turn it into something physical. Wainwright mentioned that Formlabs’ Grey Resin can achieve fast, accurate prints, and that it’s good for thermoforming as well.

The company’s Draft material is “accurate enough to create models in less than 20 minutes,” which makes it perfect for creating retainers on the same day as a patient’s appointment. Model Resin is good for accurately restoring dental models, while the biocompatible Dental LT Clear Resin can be used to print occlusal splints in addition to models.

Formlabs’ Digital Dentures solution comes in multiple shades to match a patient’s teeth, and a full set can be 3D printed for less than $10, which Wainwright says is “really a game-changer.”

“We want to make treatments easier, better, and faster,” he said in conclusion.

“3D printing is still very early in dental, this is just the beginning. The materials will just keep getting better, it’s an exciting place to be.”

Then it was time to eat lunch and chat with other attendees…or, as I did, inhale food and then find a spot in the hallway near an outlet and get a little work done.

After the lunch break, I sat in on my last panel at AMS 2020, “3D materials for dental applications.” It was a panel of one – Gabi Janssen, Business Development Manager and Global Leader, Healthcare Segment Additive Manufacturing, for DSM Additive Manufacturing. She presented on digitalization in healthcare and dentistry.

She tried to play a short movie about what the company does, but due to technical difficulties there was no sound, so she narrated instead, explaining that DSM is “a material company” that also does a lot with nutrition – a brand behind the brands.

The company also has a biomedical department, which helps deliver advanced healing solutions for AM applications, including bioceramics, collagen, polyethylenes, polyurethanes, and hydrophilic coating.

“What we have on the market is filaments,” Janssen said, pulling up a list of the dental materials DSM offers.

Several of the company’s products are geared toward the healthcare market, such as Somos BioClear for dental guides and anatomical models.

“So how do we develop a new material?” Janssen asked. “We’ve discussed 510(k) clearance materials, and you have to work all together. We look at the application, and determine what we need – printer, software, material – to fit what the end user needs.”

She pulled up a slide of the major market drivers in 3D dental printing – performance, mass customization, and time-saving.

“What kind of applications do we have in dentistry?” she asked.

To answer her own question, she showed a brief history of digital dentistry, starting with the first 3D printed part in 1983, moving on to DSM’s 3D printing resin in 1988, the beginning of aligner manufacturing in 1997 and medical modeling in 2000, and DSM’s dental materials passing USP VI in 2008. For 2020 and beyond, hopefully we’ll see the availability of direct aligner materials.

“I think there’s still a lot of data needed to show it’s good,” Janssen said about where the industry currently stands. “Reimbursement is difficult, we need this data to back it up.”

The topic of FDA clearance obviously came up a lot at AMS 2020. Janssen said that DSM has a resin that’s certified for use in dental bite guards, and a general purpose resin that isn’t certified but can be used to make FDA-cleared aligners.

“The end device needs the clearance,” she reminded the room.

She brought up how Materialise was the first company to receive FDA clearance for software about 3D printing anatomical models for diagnostic use. Materialise Mimics inPrint translates the data for the model to the 3D printer. Then, combined with a specific printer and material, it’s possible to fabricate “the model they actually want within a certain safety margin.”

“But, if you want to print medical models, just for patient communication, it does not need to be cleared, because it’s not a medical device,” she explained.

The slide above explains what makes a medical device controlled, i.e. needs clearance, while the below slide lists some very useful definitions, including biocompatibility and risk.

Janssen then brought up the “sometimes confusing standards,” such as ISO standards.

“Depending on what we do with the material, and how long it goes in the mouth, there are different risk associations,” she explained.

In terms of product classification, Class I is the least risky. But, the higher you go up in class, the more research is required to show that the 3D printable material won’t harm patients.

She said that the regulatory industry is changing to have more focus on software, with higher regulations for that software, because it “needs to be validated in combination with the material and equipment.” Additionally, there is more of a focus these days on understanding and managing risks, as well as reducing animal testing…always good news!

When choosing the proper filaments for your workflow, you should start by working with the dentist on treatment planning. Then, once the patient’s mouth has been scanned, you can create the design in the software. Then the build has to be prepared, which takes some patience and precision – you need to enter the optimal print parameters, and add supports if they’re needed. Then, after the print is complete, it needs to be removed from the bed, supports (if there are any) need to be taken off, and there may even be grinding and painting involved before the final quality check.

“Many process variables can impact the safety of the final end product,” Janssen noted. “So you need to understand the effect the material can have on patients.”

Finally, there are also plenty of steps to follow to ensure material safety in development, so it’s important to follow the instructions your supplier gives you.

Then it was time for some questions. One attendee asked why dentists aren’t all adopting AM, since some products, like mouthguards, look pretty easy to make in the back office.

“This may look easy, but it’s actually not,” Janssen explained.

She went on to say that the product or device may not always “come out right the first time.” There are a lot of parameters to look at, and potentially tweak, in order to achieve the desired result. A lot of people can get frustrated if it doesn’t work right the first time.

“What we’re doing now – if you bring your design to us, we’ll do the tweaking for you, as our software has all of the maximum and minimum numbers needed for parameters,” she said.

3D printing thought leader and author John Hornick offered his take on the question, as he has some experience with the matter. He explained that most dental offices are private, though many dentists are consolidating their practices into larger ones, “and their appetite for spending money on these machines may go up.” But, SmarTech doesn’t think the average dentist will spend that much for larger, more expensive 3D printers. That’s why some companies, like Arfona, are working on simpler material extrusion systems.

Another attendee said that it seems like 3D printing companies are just throwing technology at various markets and praying that it sticks. Dentists want to be dentists, and not spend their time dealing with issues like print parameters and melted filament.

“We, as technology providers, need to raise our game and make this work for these people,” Janssen stated.

I think that’s a great note on which to end my AMS 2020 coverage – we, the AM technology providers, need to show the rest of the world how 3D printing can work for their industries.

We hope to see you next winter for Additive Manufacturing Strategies 2021!

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

The post AMS 2020: Panels on 3D Printing Materials and Applications for Dental Industry appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

NYU Abu Dhabi Team Wins Hack3D Challenge

 

 

 

 

Two students from New York University Abu Dhabi won the first prize of the Hack3D challenge at New York University Tandon’s School of Engineering. Only five teams advanced to the final round of the only student-led 3D printing cybersecurity hackathon. The Hack3D competition, which is part of a broader global cybersecurity competition called the Cybersecurity Awareness Week (CSAW), encourages teams from around the globe to circumvent security measures in the additive manufacturing supply chain so that they can spotlight the need for anti-counterfeiting methods in 3D printing. The competition’s first round had a total of 49 teams trying to solve a problem to qualify for the next round, which included a trip to New York to attend the NYU Tandon challenge and prize money for winners and runners up.

Led by Nikhil Gupta, a mechanical and aerospace engineering professor at Tandon, the competition is on its second-year run and during the first qualifying round, had teams struggling to figure out the solution to a problem posted online. Participants were challenged to reconstruct a corrupted .gcode file employing skills in forensics and reverse-engineering. So basically, they had to hack the security measures Gupta embedded in the print files that make it virtually impossible to print a component correctly, in this case, a chess piece.

Last Friday, the final round rallied up five teams to compete in printing 3D parts that were embedded with anti-counterfeiting features developed at NYU Tandon and designed to protect CAD models. After eight intense hours at the NYU Tandon lab, Pedro Velasquez and Cole Beasley outrivaled the other four teams as they managed to hack the 3D printing cybersecurity code and 3D print the correct version. Called the SNEKS AD, the team was awarded $1,000 in prize money during a ceremony held last Friday night.

Hack3D, which explores vulnerabilities in 3D printing, brings together students from around the world to compete for scholarships and funding. Sponsored by some of the biggest names in the industry, like IBM, JP Morgan & Chase, Capsule 8, Red Baloon Security, and the National Science Foundation (NSF), this year’s CSAW annual competition gathered the world’s top student hackers with a total of 180 teams advancing to final rounds, competing for scholarships and cash prizes, including NYU Tandon’s more than $1 million in scholarships to all high school finalists in the CSAW Red Team Competition in Downtown Brooklyn.

Hack3D teams at work during the eight-hour final round challenge

3DPrint.com caught up with the winning team during the live competition on Friday via phone interview and both Beasley and Velasquez said they were “thrilled to be participating in the challenge” and “would love to return next year.” The computer science majors are both freshmen and eager to explore cybersecurity as part of their future in the chosen career. Only three hours into the challenge, Velasquez suggested: “we have a good plan in place and are keeping up with the schedule; we already have our first prototype and are printing out our second so that we can start testing it.”

Coles explained that during the final round “they have given us one part (a male piece) and we basically have to create another part (female) that connects to it”. There was a code embedded in the CAD file, which he referred to as a “hint hidden inside the code,” and once they got the right piece 3D printed, they won the challenge.

During Hack3D, competitors also had the opportunity to learn and use skills in graphics programming, file manipulation, and reverse engineering while gaining an understanding of the additive manufacturing supply chain.

Gupta explained during an interview with 3DPrint.com that “hackathons are an important component in finding the strength of the security method, so this year we expanded the competition and had 49 entries from across the world. We gave them one problem, yet none of the teams could completely solve it, so the five finalists that came closest to the answer were able to compete. They had two months for the first challenge, but only eight hours for the final round, and they needed to 3D print the part in our lab to check whether they could succesfully solve the challenge.” 

Last year’s Hack3D pieces

“People have been doing traditional cybersecurity measures like password protecting files, encrypting files but there is nothing that relates to 3D printing itself, so we came up with some design schemes, so using the design features that we put in the files while designing the products. The security features prevent the files from getting printed in high quality unless you use a security key.” 

The runners up were Alex Manning and Erin Ozcan, also known as the pwndevils from Arizona State University, and in third place, the AGGIES from Texas A&M University: Akash Tiwari, Maccoy Merrell, and Mutaz Melhem.

Gupta went on to say that “we found that the cyber threat landscape in the 3D printing world, mainly for aerospace and medical devices, will get worse. For example, if a counterfeit part makes its way to an airplane and something goes wrong, it will become hard to figure out that it was the reason for an accident. On the other hand, 3D printing and general access to new technologies have made it easier to replicate parts or reverse engineer them to recreate a system.”

According to NYU, flawed parts printed from stolen design files could produce dire results: experts predict that by 2021, 75 percent of new commercial and military aircraft will fly with 3D-printed engine, airframe, and other components, and the use of AM in the production of medical implants will grow by 20 percent per year over the next decade.

“Since mechanical engineers are the ones designing many parts, they need to get into a security mindset, to handle this issue,” continued the expert.

Nikhil Gupta

So Gupta, along with other researchers at NYU Tandon and NYU Abu Dhabi, were the first to convert flat QR codes into complex features hidden within 3D printed parts to foil counterfeiters and IP pirates and to provide an innovative way for unique device identification.

Gupta and his colleagues developed a scheme that “explodes” a QR code within a computer-assisted design (CAD) file so that it presents several false faces — dummy QR tags — to a scanning device. Only a trusted printer or end user would know the correct head-on orientation for the scanner to capture the legitimate QR code image. 

“In 3D printing, you are creating a part layer by layer, so we break the QR code into a number of parts–like 300 different pieces–and we embed them into each layer, so that only one particular direction will show you the QR code, every other direction will show a cloud of points. Using any identifiable signature embedded, microstructures or metal sized particles can be used as a security method.”

Embedded codes layer by layer

Continued growth in the 3D printing sector means that the CAD design files and the machines become vulnerable to hacks. Cybersecurity issues in the virtual world wreak havoc, in the last year a series of ransomware and supply chain attacks led to seriously compromised companies and malicious hacking. All this can quickly translate into 3D printing, with objects manufactured being at serious risk of failure, and as cyberattacks become more advanced, the risks are greater. NYU Tandon, one of the first university departments to teach cybersecurity in 3D printing, is raising the bar to spark student interest in the field, by engaging the global community in their annual hackathon. For Gupta, a lot of what we are beginning to see and as hacks become more advanced, this represents a significant danger for AM cybersecurity. The vulnerability of the internet around the world is increasing, accompanied by an expanding community of hackers that didn’t use to have the tools required for hacking. He claims that “there are now more motivations for hacks as digital manufacturing is rapidly increasing, bringing 3D printing to the forefront of the industry.” 

[Images: NYU Tandon]

The post NYU Abu Dhabi Team Wins Hack3D Challenge appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Caterpillar Is a Powerful Rhino Grasshopper Plug-in for Greater Customization in 3D Printing

Bio-inspired 3D printings by (Zheng and Schleicher 2018)

Whether you are a serious 3D printing user or not, you have probably heard of Grasshopper, a popular add on of 3D modeling software Rhino. Grasshopper lets you use scripts and algorithms to create 3D models and generative designs. It is one of the quickest ways through which designers can get started with generative designs and lets you in a visual build things such as parametric designs or designs based on datasets. You may not yet be familiar with other features, however, recently outlined by University of Pennsylvania’s Hao Zheng in ‘Caterpillar – A GCode Translator in Grasshopper.’ Here, we learn more about a new plug-in Caterpillar and its ability to unleash full use of the three degrees of freedom of Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) machines and non-traditional 3D printing. Caterpillar lets you generate Gcode from within Grasshopper. Your dataset or generative algorithm or existing model can now be quickly turned into Gcode that you can then optimize for 3D printing. This will enable people to quickly implement very creative and new 3D printing methods and techniques as well as enable the making of more non-traditional 3D printing processes.

Zheng points out what many of have noticed over time, as 3D printing users are simply not satisfied to stop and enjoy what has been supplied to them in terms of what is now traditional 3D printing in the layer-by-layer, bottom-to-top approach. For better control, Zheng postulates that users must be able to use ‘the three degrees of freedom’ – meaning X, Y, and Z and also go beyond them. More degrees of freedom and different ways of printing mean more applications are possible. The developers have added to conventional methods previously with accompaniments such as robotic arms, 3D printers that print on curved surfaces, as well as those that extrude alternative materials like wire.

For Caterpillar to do the necessary work, you must first give it the necessary data required. This means printers settings, to include many different parameters:

“Printer bed size (MM) contains three numbers (x, y, z), indicating the maximum printing size of the printer. Heated bed temperature (°C), extruder temperature (°C), and filament diameter (MM) are based on the printing material, which normally will not be changed once settled. Layer height (MM) and subdivision distance (MM) control the precision of the printing, while printing speed (%), moving speed (%), retraction speed (%), and retraction distance (MM) control how fast the printer will act when printing, moving without printing, and retracting materials. Extruder width (%) and extruder multiplier (%) together decide the width of the printed toolpaths.”

Work flow of Caterpillar in Grasshopper

Most users can just go with their default settings to be safe, but there may be some cases where you want to customize without default restriction. Infill settings must be considered too if you are slicing the model to provide infill.

For slicer and toolpath generation, there are numerous options:

  • Planar slicer
  • Curved slicer
  • Curved toolpaths for special use
  • User-defined toolpaths

Planar Slicer (left), Curved Slicer (middle), User-defined Toolpath (right)

The workflow of the GCode generator then creates toolpaths based on points based on inputted curves, and optimization occurs:

“So before inputting the given curves to the dividing component, the program will detect and separate curved toolpaths and linear toolpaths, then divide the curved toolpaths as usual and extract the start and end points to represent the linear toolpaths.”

The GCode decoder then translates text files, assisting users in further design and control through keywords extraction and model rebuilding.

Commonly-Used Gcode.

“In the future, non-conventional customized 3D printing will be highly developed for both educational and industrial purposes,” concludes Zheng. “Low-cost 3-axis 3D printers with extra toolkits can handle a variety of tasks, providing an alternative for expensive robotic fabrication.”

In 3D printing, the central theme is customization. Users can create on an infinite scale, whenever they want, rapidly and affordability. Hardware choices continue to expand with the needs of 3D printing enthusiasts around the world, as do materials. Changes and evolution in software tend to be even more sweeping—and desired—as computer programs allow us to design objects and then control printing processes. While add-ons, plug-ins, and updates are continually available, software programs drive innovations—whether in allowing more advanced bioprinting and tissue engineering, scanning, or simulation of other processes. Caterpillar makes is much easier to implement, design and develop completely new 3D printing techniques and we can not wait to see the impact that this will have.

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

Printing Simulation

[Source / Images: ‘Caterpillar – A GCode Translator in Grasshopper]

Cunicode Uses Code to Generate Beautiful, Unique 3D Printed Art

It’s truly amazing what can be done artistically with 3D printing. The medium allows for plenty of design freedom, and some artists have even taken the approach of using Gcode to generate unique works of art. There’s something fascinating about using code to create art; it’s a true melding of creativity and technology, and nothing like it was ever possible until recently. 3D printing art studio Cunicode was founded in 2011, and is run by Bernat Cuni, a product designer who specializes in digital fabrication. Through the studio, he collaborates with other individuals and service providers to create digitally-generated works of art.

Cunicode’s latest work, Permutation, is a collection of stoneware. Each piece is composed of nine basic units placed around a cylinder. They were designed in Rhino and Grasshopper and 3D printed by BCN3D Technologies on a PotterBot 3D printer. The number of variations that can be generated by the code is truly staggering. For example, one piece, titled “P114.3,” could have been made with 148,791,629,670,981,130,805,037,453,479,575,340 different combinations. That’s one hundred and forty eight decillion, seven hundred and ninety one nonillion, six hundred and twenty nine octillion, six hundred and seventy septillion, nine hundred and eighty one sextillion, one hundred and thirty quintillion, eight hundred and five quadrillion,  and thirty seven trillion, four hundred and fifty three billion, four hundred and seventy nine million, five hundred and seventy five thousand, three hundred and forty. Yikes.

Ironically, there’s something ancient-looking about the pieces themselves, their combinations of lines, dots and swirls resembling some kind of old written language. One could make a philosophical statement about art coming full circle, about the newest form of art mirroring the oldest, about digital fabrication creating similar works to what humans created thousands of years ago. If you don’t want to get that deep, however, you can still appreciate the ceramic pieces for their beauty.

Cunicode’s other projects are just as fascinating. In one, called art.faces, eight famous paintings were selected, and the designers allowed the Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to “perform a direct regression of a volumetric representation of the 3D facial geometry from a single 2D image.” In other words, the faces in the paintings were turned into 3D representations. They’re almost eerie to look at, as though there’s something alive about them.

Another work, Tree Ring, takes photogrammetry data captured from a live tree and turns it into beautiful rings that look like metallic slices of a tree trunk. Others include 3D figurines made from children’s drawings, GPS tracks turned into tiny 3D printed mountains, and experimental jewelry and coffee cups.

Some people are still skeptical about 3D printed art, but in my opinion, there’s no question that digital fabrication is just as valid an art form as any other. Deep knowledge of the technology is required to generate art like Permutation and Cunicode’s other works, as well as the creativity to harness the technology to create something both visually appealing and brand new. It takes just as much craftsmanship to create something digitally as it does manually – and thankfully, the idea that 3D printed art isn’t true “art” seems to be fading.

If you’re interested in creating an experimental project using digital fabrication, Cunicode is accepting requests for collaboration.

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

[Images: Cunicode]