E.U. to Regulate 3D Printed Toys & Supply Chain

The European Union has taken a serious interest in regulating 3D printed toys. As additive manufacturing processes only continue to pick up steam, affecting nearly every industry in some way, safety is becoming more of a concern. In the 80s of course, with the inception of SLA 3D printing, most digital fabrication was used for rapid prototyping with a limited range of software and materials (generally photopolymers) available to users.

There are countless new materials on the market now, as ambitious users and researchers around the world continue to forge ahead, overcoming obstacles, and creating new ways to fabricate complex geometries, whether for prototypes or functional parts. This doesn’t mean all 3D printing materials are safe to use—or that structures and wiring may not cause a potential hazard. Children have the potential to be very hard on toys, and especially over time. They may ingest small pieces and choke, or experience poisoning from toxic chemicals.

Concern over toy safety encompasses the entire industry, however, with basic measures in place regarding “general risks” for children and anyone who may be exposed to toys, along with “particular risks” surrounding fire, chemicals, radioactivity, electrical issues, and more. The EU offers recommendations to 27 countries, and also oversees the Innovation Radar Platform—recently naming WAZP as a Key Innovator. And while safety is a major focus, here, the goal is to create a solid innovative industry with a strong supply chain—meaning that quality products need to be at the center.

The platform is used to highlight new concepts and the inventors behind them, and is funded by the EU as well as other framework programs centered around research and innovation—often including applications like consumer goods, manufacturing, distribution of products, and retail goods. WAZP is certainly well-acquainted with most of those areas of industry, acting as a global supply chain company for additive manufacturing. The Tralee, Ireland-headquartered company gained notice during the Horizon 2020 iBus Project, known for focusing on internet business models for toys, as well as furniture, and commissioned by the University of Limerick.

The WAZP team follows through from optimization to manufacturing and delivery. (Image: WAZP)

(Image: WAZP)

Germany’s University of Paderborn has also been recognized as a key innovator, and the two companies will be overseeing the creation of an “innovative high confidence quotation model for AM toys safety.”

Four levels, created by Innovation Radar, will be explored:

  1. Value creation opportunities
  2. Technology readiness
  3. Business readiness
  4. Market readiness

WAZP will offer their experience in creating successful models for 3D printing supply chains, including “value” for stakeholders like the suppliers of toys, manufacturers, distribution companies, stores selling toys, and consumers too. Sustainability is a key goal in these business models, bolstering supply chains within the 3D printed toy industry.

Innovation Radar operates on four different maturity levels (Image: Innovation Radar)

WAZP’s success has been in providing business models that offer customized supply chain strategies. Their team believes in producing complex, quality designs, but within a “no-waste culture.” Research and development will continue with the University of Limerick, University of Paderborn, and the European Union. Check out information about Innovation Radar and EU funded projects here.

3D printing within the toy industry has brought many new concepts and products to life for kids, and consumers of all ages, from spinning tops to parts for train sets, LEGO constructions and even go-karts, and more.

[Source / Images: WAZP]

The post E.U. to Regulate 3D Printed Toys & Supply Chain appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

A Guide to Bioprinting: Understanding a Booming Industry

The success of bioprinting could become the key enabler that personalized medicine, tissue engineering, and regenerative medicine need to become a part of medical arsenals. Breakthroughs in bioprinting will enable faster and more efficient patient care and recovery. Biofabrication could be used to reshape the foundations of drug development, medicine, cosmetics, organ transplantation, and many other fields. It will transform the way doctors repair damaged ligaments, recreate tissues, and even reproduce the layers of the skin.

We are entering an era of bioprinting revolution. But to understand the role that bioprinting will play in the future, it is important to look back at how early discoveries in the field provided a strong basis to push its capability forward:

  • Back in the ’90s, Anthony Atala, pediatric surgeon, urologist, and director of the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine (WFIRM) in North Carolina, created by hand bladders, skin, cartilage, urethra, muscle, and vaginal organs. By the end of that decade, the Institute used a 3D printer to build a synthetic scaffold of a human bladder, which they then coated with cells taken from their patients and implanted it, preparing the stage for bioprinting.
  • Then in 2002, scientists from Harvard University printed two-inch-long mini-kidneys capable of filtering blood that was then transplanted back into genetically identical cows, where they started making urine. The novel research raised the prospect of using stem cells taken from human patients with kidney failure to create new organs for transplant.
  • However, it wasn’t until 2003, when bioengineering professor Thomas Boland adapted a Hewlett-Packard inkjet printer in his lab at Clemson University to begin printing a bioink made of living bovine cells suspended in the cell-culture medium, that bioprinting began to materialize. This led to the creation of the world’s first 3D bioprinter, capable of creating living tissue from a solution of cells, nutrients, and other bio-compatible substances.
picture os a man using the bioprinter on a limb

A member of WFIRM team operates with the bioprinter (Image: WFIRM)

Twenty years later, researchers still face challenges as they continue working with bioprinters and bioinks. Even though there has been an increasing adoption of the technology, the extent of its potential has not been fully exploited. From choosing the bioinks to actually bioprinting human tissues and organs, this new field is quickly becoming the go-to technology that bioengineers, researchers, and hospitals need to evolve from lengthy and cumbersome manual work to scalable and replicable results.

How Well Do you Know Bioprinters? (or How Bioprinters Work and Who Makes Them)

Bioprinters work by extruding cells and other biomaterials contained in bioinks, from syringes that deposit the material layer by layer to create different types of tissues or organ-like constructs. The technology behind the bioprinters vary. Nonetheless, to date, the three main and most popular bioprinting technologies are extrusion, inkjet, and laser-based bioprinting. Some mainstream examples are:

  • Some manufacturers, like Cellink or Allevi, use pneumatic-driven extrusion systems that pump high-pressure air in a cartridge to force bioinks to flow through a nozzle. 
  • Other fabrication systems, such as the one designed by Poietis has laser-assisted bioprinting that allows cells to be positioned in three dimensions with micrometric resolution and precision to design living tissue.
  • Another type of bioprinting technology uses a stereolithography-based bioprinting platform. Vendors using this process include Volumetric and Cellink’s jointly produced Lumen X projection stereolithography based bioprinter.
  • Another project that could revolutionize the way surgical procedures are performed is handheld bioprinters; these systems enable surgeons to deploy cells — or material to aid in cellular growth — directly into a defect site in the body, such as severely burnt skin, corneal ulcerations or bone. One of the most talked-about handheld bioprinters has been Australia’s University of Wollongong BioPen, allow surgeons to repair damaged bone and cartilage by “drawing” new cells directly onto bone in the middle of a surgical procedure. Although still in pre-clinical trials, these devices have attracted the attention of healthcare practitioners due to its versatility.

A few of the main manufacturers supplying the market include 3D Bioprinting Solutions, Allevi, Aspect Biosystems, Cellink, nScryptregenHuInventiaRegemat3DPoietis, and more. Last year, 3DPrint.com counted 111 established bioprinting firms around the world. Mapping the companies that make up this industry is a good starting point to understand the bioprinting ecosystem, determine where most companies have established their headquarters and learn more about potential hubs, like the one in San Francisco.

Types of Bioinks

3D bioprinters use bioinks. Bioinks are substances made of living cells that can be used for 3D printing complex tissue models — they mimic an extracellular matrix environment to support the adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation of living cells. Choosing which bioink to use can be challenging. To date, we have witnessed researchers using bioinks based on several biomaterials, such as alginate, gelatin, collagen, silk, hyaluronic acid, even some synthetic-biomaterials-based-bioinks.

The promise of hydrogels. A macromolecular polymer gel constructed of a network of cross-linked polymer chains, hydrogels are able to meet the stringent requirements of cells and are the basis of almost all bioink formulations. As stated in “Engineering Hydrogels for Biofabrication”, published in Advanced Materials, “hydrogels are particularly attractive for biofabrication as they recapitulate several features of the natural extracellular matrix and allow cell encapsulation in a highly hydrated mechanically supportive threedimensional environment.” This makes hydrogel-based bioinks a very promising choice for many researchers and bioengineers.

Bioinks from patients’ cells. The biomaterials can also use a patient’s own cells, adult stem cells, manipulating them to recreate the required tissue. The source of the cells varies depending on what researchers are bioprinting. For example, in the case of Alzheimer’s disease, experts at the University of Victoria in Canada, have bioprinted neural tissues using stem cells as a tool for screening drug targets for the disease. The ability to program patient-specific cells is the beginning of customized bioprinting since the unlimited potential of these cells can be used to regenerate or repair damaged tissue. 

Polbionica’s bioinks (Image: Polbionica)

What is Bioprinting Good For?

What is most exciting about bioprinting, are the many ways that doctors and researchers are using currently available devices in the market or are creating their own systems to facilitate new processes and applications. The orchestrated interaction between machine and user has led to innovation that could reinvent the world of tissue engineering.

Moving oncology forward:  Bioprinting is being employed in the battle against cancer, whereby scientists create tumor models for research. Modeling cancer using 2D cell cultures fails to accurately replicate the microenvironment of tumors. This is why scientists have turned to biofabrication tools to make three-dimensional models that mimic the intricate in vivo tumors. These models help test anticancer drugs; aid scientists in understanding the underlying causes of metastasis, and can even personalize treatment for individual cancer patients. There have been plenty of initiatives that apply bioprinting to oncology. These range from immersion bioprinting of human organoids to printing cancer tissues in 3D

Microtumors (Image: CTI Biotech)

The market for oncology-oriented bioprinting seems sure to grow. The number of patients suffering from the disease continues to go up. In 2018 alone there were 17 million new cases of cancer worldwide, and projections suggest that there will be 27.5 million new cases of cancer each year by 2040. What that effectively means is that we are witnessing an increase in oncology bioengineering research and whether it is for glioblastoma, bone cancer tumors, or lung models with tumors, the implications can be profound since the ability to use bioinks and bioprinters to create tumors frees researchers of the many ethical concerns associated with testing as well as reduces the costs associated with such research activities. 

Building scaffolds: Probably the most important practical use for bioprinting at the present time is in regenerative medicine. For instance, in 2019, researchers from North Carolina State University (NCSU) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill created a 3D biomedical fiber printer used to create biocompatible scaffolds. Also, Harvard researchers working in Jennifer Lewis’ Lab at Harvard´s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering and John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS), came up with a much talked about breakthrough new technique, the SWIFT method, that allows 3D printing to focus on creating the vessels necessary to support a living tissue construct. A team of researchers at Texas A&M University have even developed a 3D printable hydrogel bioink containing mineral nanoparticles that can deliver protein therapeutics to control cell behavior.

Limitations of Bioprinting

Though we heard it many times before, knowing that someday 3D printed artificial organs could eliminate the need for an organ donor waiting list is comforting. Creating personalized replacement organs sounds like the solve-all solution to the organ shortage crisis, yet, a functional organ compatible for human implantation may be decades away. Today, 3D printed organs are still raw to be used for transplantation and lack the vasculature required to function within the human body.

Creation. Last year, mainstream news outlets headlined a story about researchers who had 3D printed a heart. However, the published scientific paper behind that story described how a group of scientists from Tel Aviv, Israel, created bioink out of heart cells and other materials from a patient, and were able to develop cardiac patches and ultimately, 3D print comprehensive tissue structures that include whole hearts. The tissue was shaped in the form of a tiny heart that was kept alive in a nutrient solution. The paper expresses how this development could not function like a real heart since the cells in the construct can contract, but don’t yet have the ability to pump.

This was certainly not the first heart to be 3D printed, yet Tal Dvir, who led the project at Tel Aviv University’s School of Molecular Cell Biology and Biotechnology, indicated that never before had it resulted in an organ “with cells or with blood vessels.” It was an amazing breakthrough for the field, and it proves that biotechnology has made significant advances, but it is still a long way from creating organs that can be transplanted to people, considering that the vasculature — the network of blood vessels that feeds the organ — remains a challenge, but scientists are determined to troubleshoot these issues.

So, no matter how enticing the idea of successfully bioprinted organs sound, stories like this remind us to keep the hype in check, making the work of news outlets fundamental for reporting advancements in research and medical breakthroughs (which usually take much more time).

Where to Next?

Organ bioprinting. The application of 3D bioprinting will be a game-changer in medicine, as the machines successfully replicate tissues and organs, build muscles and cartilage, and enable the adoption of customized medicine. The long-term dream for bioprinting has always been the routine printing of body organs. Current ongoing projects include Michal Wszola’s 3D bioprinted bionic pancreas or Organovo’s 3D bioprinted liver.

The space frontier. Bioprinting in space could hold the key to developing fully functional organs. This is because bioprinting without gravity allows organs to grow without the need for scaffolds. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) considers that terrestrial gravitation represents a significant limitation, while a gravity-free environment, magnetic and diamagnetic levitation will allow for biofabrication of 3D tissue constructs with a scaffold-free and even nozzle-free approach. Some bioprinters have already been launched and used in space.  This includes nScrypt and Techshot’s BioFabrication Facility (BFF), or the Organaut 3D bioprinter created by Russian biotech firm 3D Bioprinting Solutions and Roscosmos, the Russian state corporation responsible for space flights.

Healthcare at its best. More prosaically, biomaterials specialist and a professor of biofabrication at Queensland University of Technology, Australia, Mia Woodruff, has been advocating the hospitals of the future for years. She has an exciting vision of a future where the fabrication of patient-specific replacement tissue and organs is safe, cost-effective, and routine. Though perhaps years from happening, her vision is in tune with what many think bioprinting could become, that is, with enough researchers, companies, and funding.

An astronaut aboard the ISS using Techshot’s BioFabrication Facility or BFF (Image: Techshot/NASA)

Coming regulation. Back here on Earth, there will be a growing need for common guidelines for bioprinting to make the process more standardized. In the EU, for example, there currently no particular regulatory regime governing the whole bioprinting process, but piecemeal legislation is relevant in relation to tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States plans to review the regulatory issues related to the bioprinting of biological, cellular and tissue-based products in order to determine whether additional guidance is needed beyond the recently released regulatory framework on regenerative medicine medical products.

As the development of the technology strongly advances and proves successful for researchers, we will surely continue to observe brilliant minds perfecting devices and biomaterials, envisioning new systems for future needs, especially as startups emerge out of universities and research institutes, and established companies upgrade their machines to face the limitations we previously addressed in this article.

Still, there is a long way to go, what was largely built so far is a very promising technology. For instance, fully functional organ fabrication for transplantation might take decades. Nonetheless, the unquestionable contribution of bioprinting to so many fields remains an incentive to invest in this area to overcome medical challenges and to move the healthcare industry in a different path, where technology will not only aid in curing diseases but also guiding people by helping them stay healthy, recognizing symptoms early and personalizing solutions in real-time. 

The post A Guide to Bioprinting: Understanding a Booming Industry appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

3D Printing for COVID-19, Part Six: Government Regulations and Outreach

As a country with a strong centralized government, China was able to enact a quarantine and manufacture supplies quickly compared to nations with weaker or decentralized governance structures. From that we might conclude that, while numerous small businesses, 3D printer users, and large corporations have begun utilizing their 3D printing skills and equipment to produce medical supplies for the COVID-19 outbreak, governments may be those most necessary to coordinate an effective response. Interestingly, we are seeing government bodies incorporate additive manufacturing (AM) into their emergency relief efforts, setting yet another precedent within this unprecedented pandemic. 

The European Commission (EC), for instance, reached out to the European association for AM, CECIMO, to see if its network of members can manufacture medical equipment for hospitals confronting the coronavirus outbreak. The EC said that it would facilitate companies wishing to aid in relief efforts to protect them from a legal standpoint, given the regulatory constraints associated with manufacturing medical goods. CECIMO has a form that AM companies can fill out in order to be considered for possible assistance in manufacturing goods for possible use in dealing with the virus. 

Vincenzo Belletti, CECIMO Innovation Policy Manager, has said that the trade group is providing daily reports to the EC, acting as an intermediary between the EC and companies, national trade associations and universities with AM capabilities. CECIMO is facilitating these parties as they deal with the “financial, legal and intellectual property issues” associated with individual nations within the European Union. Among the financial issues is the fact that, while AM companies are providing their services free of charge, there are associated transportation and material costs that may need to be covered through an emergency fund. 

The trade group is hoping that national governments and hospitals publish information related to what equipment is needed and what guidelines should be followed. Belletti told 3D Printing Media Network, “In the UK, the guidelines for the production of tools such as fans have been published by the government; it would also be important to have an official reference model in Europe, so as to simplify the work.”

Like the EC, the Canadian government has sent out a request to educational institutions to provide resources to fight the coronavirus outbreak, including N95 masks and surgical masks, nitrile and vinyl gloves, hand sanitizer and hospital gowns, disposable surgical masks, nitrile gloves, vinyl gloves, hospital gowns, hand sanitizer. In a post on LinkedIn, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wrote: “To every university, college, polytechnic, and CEGEP in the country: We need your expertise and your resources. If you have masks and ventilators we can use, or if you think you can help with things like 3D printing of medical supplies, let us know.”

In addition to the aforementioned hospital items, Canada is looking for providers of nursing, IT support and security services. To provide goods or services, individuals, institutions and businesses are instructructed to fill out a submission form on Buyandsell.gc.ca, the government’s procurement information service.

As discussed in previous posts, including our article on DIY ventilators, there are complicated health and safety considerations to take into account with all of these projects. This means that, even if we don’t have time to 3D print devices according to regulatory approval processes, guidelines should at least put in place to ensure the maximum level of safety possible. 

Fortunately, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published a letter that includes information related to medical devices for the COVID-19 outbreak. The letter, meant to complement existing health guidelines, highlights the use of FDA-approved ventilators whenever possible, but states that modifications to such devices can be made without FDA approval due to the ongoing health emergency. In such cases, the regulatory body suggests that FDA indications for these devices to be clearly distinguished from those that are not yet approved.

When FDA-approved devices are not available, medical teams can rely on alternative breathing devices as necessary, such as home ventilators or emergency transport ventilators, anesthesia gas machines, and noninvasive ventilation patient interfaces (e.g., CPAP, auto-CPAP, BiPAP machines for sleep apnea). 

Hopefully, these devices will be more immediately available than experimental 3D-printed devices, for which there is not yet any regulatory approval. The FDA has not yet put out criteria related to 3D-printed parts for responding to the outbreak. With that in mind, we would like to list just a few that should give people pause about how 3D printing can help. 

As our editor Joris Peels points out, there are numerous risks that can be associated with 3D-printed parts, many of which we have not yet discussed in this series. Here is a brief breakdown about the potential health issues to be considered:

  • Porosity: 3D-printed parts have microscopic pores where bacteria can grow
  • Particles: Microscopic debris from the surrounding environment can be embedded in a printed part during the fabrication process. 
  • Additives: Ingredients within a material can be carcinogenic, can cause allergies, or can be toxic to cells (cytotoxicity).
  • Proper functionality: We don’t know that these designs will function as intended. Most printed parts suffer from weakness in the Z-axis. Therefore, critical parts may break during operation, potentially causing even more issues. 

As Joris explains, “we could be making things that increase the spread of the virus rather than contain it. Rather than be a solution for someone who has no mask, we could infect their entire family.” This does not mean that all of the efforts to support the medical supply effort are fruitless, but that they aren’t something one should embark on hastily and without aid from existing medical staff. 

The post 3D Printing for COVID-19, Part Six: Government Regulations and Outreach appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

AMS 2020: Keynote Presentations on 3D Printing in Metal and Medical Industries

For the second year running, and its third year total, 3DPrint.com and SmarTech Analysis have brought the Additive Manufacturing Strategies summit to Boston. With a theme of “The Business of 3D Printing,” the event continues its established coverage of 3D printing in the medical and dental industries, but adds a new metals track this year.

Lawrence Gasman, the President of SmarTech, welcomed everyone to the event, and then we jumped right into the thick of things, as Dr. Banu Gemici-Ozkan, Senior Market Intelligence Leader for GE Additive, presented her keynote, entitled “Metal Additive Strategies Enabling Next Generation of Adopters.”

Dr. Banu Gemici-Ozkan

Dr. Gemici-Ozkan explained that she’s been working with additive manufacturing for about four years, and her role is to oversee global operations, as well as support business in the metal AM space with the right applications.

“I’m in marketing, so I have to start with numbers,” she said, pulling up a slide of the “world of opportunities” for metal AM.

She explained that conventional manufacturing happens in many stages – you have to extract the metal, process it in chemical plants, assemble it into the final products, and several others that I’m definitely leaving out. Additive manufacturing can accomplish all of this in less steps, which is why it’s so attractive.

An example of an engine turbine came up, and at the bottom was a statement about how metal AM is competing with $570 billion worth of core conventional metal manufacturing processes. But, system redesign is what makes it competitive to this traditional methods – AM offers a simpler supply chain and leaner operations.

“It’s really exciting to see the potential of additive manufacturing,” Dr. Gemici-Ozkan said. “But where are we in this vision today?”

A timeline showed that the number of metal AM system installations in the first stage of the “diffusion of innovation,” in the 1990s, was less than 50…only the true innovators will put in the work of debugging these first systems and working out the kinks. The early adoption visionaries come in later, excited to invest in the technology.

“The customers are who drive the change,” she said. “So far, we’ve only seen innovators and visionaries.”

She explained that the next generation of the market will consist of the bigger players, or pragmatists, jumping on board. These adopters are cost-conscious, and will be looking for full solutions.

Then, she walked us through what she called the four “critical industries” in metal additive manufacturing. I’m sure you can guess them: medical, dental, aerospace, and automotive. When asked if they were there with the medical field, nearly half the hands in the room were raised, making Dr. Gemici-Ozkan’s point that this sector is a “great space to be in from a metal AM perspective.” The adoption drivers in this industry are cost and performance, with major applications in porous, biocompatible structures with fine features. Here, accuracy, repeatability, and traceability become really important.

Dental is the most mature industry for metal AM, a point that I heard multiple times throughout the day in different presentations. She explained that adoption drivers are lead time and customization; in this and the medical industry, the turnover time with metal 3D printed parts is roughly 24 hours, which you just can’t beat. Additionally, technology providers are focused on meeting customer needs.

In the aerospace industry, industrial production is the main focus. The materials are more versatile, and applications are in large parts and complex geometries with fine features.

“I could talk for hours about this industry,” she said.

“The potential is huge…this space offers a great potential from the industrial production perspective.”

She brought up the GE9X jet engine, which has 304 3D printed components and offers GE Aviation fuel savings of 10% when compared to its predecessor, the GE90, which only featured one 3D printed part.

The automotive industry is already automated, so its needs are focused on cost-conscious systems. Dr. Gemici-Ozkan said that AM technology providers “need to consider integrating their systems to the factory solutions.” The technology will have greater potential in this sector as material costs continue to come down, and she noted that binder jetting will be important in this space.

“Additive manufacturing is not a one-size-fits-all solution – it offers different solutions for different industries and applications,” Dr. Gemici-Ozkan said in summary. “It sounds like it’s all versatile, but these are the building blocks of mainstream technology.”

Then it was time for the next keynote presentation, “Medical 3D Printing: Building the Infrastructure for Innovation,” by Lauralyn McDaniel, Industry Manager, Analysis, for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Part of ASME’s mission is to improve people’s lives through engineering, which is definitely what 3D printing is working towards in the medical field.

McDaniel also started with numbers, with a slide stating that over one million patients had been directly impacted by AM, and that number increases to over two million when you take into account indirect impacts.

“Understanding the history of additive manufacturing in the medical industry can give us clues as to where we go from here,” McDaniel said, before launching into a brief timeline that began with the first 3D printed model from a medical image in 1988.

She explained that some of the factors leading to growth of the technology in the medical field include improved software, more material choices, precision medicine, faster and more precise processes, and the fact that more people share their resources and experience.

“You need published studies to generate the evidence that doctors need,” McDaniel explained.

Challenges include process bottlenecks, verification and validation processes, standards and regulations, and the workforce development.

Then, she cleared up something that many don’t always understand – most materials that people say are FDA-cleared are not, they have just been used in FDA-cleared devices. For example, titanium is often used in orthopedic implants, but the material itself is not cleared by the FDA, it’s just been cleared for use in the implant.

Continuing on to the regulatory process, McDaniel explained that there’s a “big difference” between a new product, and a new way to make the same product.

“The dental industry has a whole infrastructure set up to match patients with devices and implants, 3D printing just gives them a new, more efficient way to do it,” she said. “But anatomical models is a whole new product category.”

McDaniel said that ASME is supporting a series of discussions about the FDA’s concept framework for 3D printing at the point-of-care, and has worked with the agency to create validation and verification standards, including those for 3D printed medical devices. Just over half of the medical devices that have been cleared by the FDA are metal, so never fear, polymers are still significant in this space.

On the clinical side of things, standards aren’t quite as common, but she mentioned that the RSNA Special Interest Group is working to develop guidelines to help others with their own processes.

Some of the development highlights that McDaniel touched on include 3D printing-enabled tissue fabrication, clear dental aligners, which “exploded a bit because some of the patents expired,” tissue fabrication in outer space, and the fact that nearly 150 3D printed medical devices have been cleared by the FDA overall; at least three of these were patient-specific.

Moving forward with medical 3D printing, McDaniel said we need more collaboration and sharing of our experiences and resources, along with continuing materials development, improved software and AI, increased standards development, and more regulatory clarification, especially in hospitals.

Stay tuned to 3DPrint.com as we continue to bring you the news from our third annual AMS Summit.

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

[Photos: Sarah Saunders]

The post AMS 2020: Keynote Presentations on 3D Printing in Metal and Medical Industries appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.