3D Printing in Separation Science: Hype or Reality?

The purpose of this paper is to make an analysis of the advanced technologies for 3D printing of pharmaceutical products for personalised medicine.A review of the basic 3D printing methods used in pharmaceutical technologies is conducted. The main types of printed solid dosage forms are examined, along with the primary advantages and disadvantages of 3D printing compared to conventional drug production. Each method is evaluated in terms of working principles, material compatibility, advantages, and limitations.Revealed that stereolithography (SLA), selective laser sintering (SLS), fused deposition modelling (FDM), ink-jet printing (IJP), and semi-solid extrusion (SSE) are the most suitable 3D printing processes for producing pharmaceutical products. The combination of two methods ensures better results, as illustrated by examples of the main types of printed solid dosage forms.The 3D printing technologies for production of pharmaceutical products present several limitations such as: uneven geometries and porous structures, necessitating the fabrication of larger and irregular dosage forms to ensure the required drug load for the patient; degradation of thermolabile drugs during FDM process; increased hardness of FDM produced tablets impairing drug release.The advanced 3D printing technologies offer the ability to produce new formulations easily through simple design modifications in software, compared to conventional manufacturing. They enable the design of flexible formulations with complex release profiles and the personalised production of dosage forms tailored to individual patients.3D printing has emerged as a transformative technology in pharmaceutical manufacturing, enabling the production of personalised dosage forms with precise drug loading, tailored release profiles, and complex geometries. The review not only summarises the main applicable techniques but also highlights the most recommended methods for personalised pharmacotherapy. The versatility and adaptability of 3D printing provide promising solutions for personalised therapy, emergency drug manufacturing, and enhanced patient compliance, marking a significant step toward decentralised, digital pharmaceutical production.

Recent developments in three-dimensional (3D) printing technology offer immense potential in fabricating scaffolds and implants for various biomedical applications, especially for bone repair and regeneration. As the availability of autologous bone sources and commercial products is limited and surgical methods do not help in complete regeneration, it is necessary to develop alternative approaches for repairing large segmental bone defects. The 3D printing technology can effectively integrate different types of living cells within a 3D construct made up of conventional micro- or nanoscale biomaterials to create an artificial bone graft capable of regenerating the damaged tissues. This article reviews the developments and applications of 3D printing in bone tissue engineering and highlights the numerous conventional biomaterials and nanomaterials that have been used in the production of 3D-printed scaffolds. A comprehensive overview of the 3D printing methods such as stereolithography (SLA), selective laser sintering (SLS), fused deposition modeling (FDM), and ink-jet 3D printing, and their technical and clinical applications in bone repair and regeneration has been provided. The review is expected to be useful for readers to gain an insight into the state-of-the-art of 3D printing of bone substitutes and their translational perspectives.

Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a process for creating 3D objects with various geometries using digital modeling, and it is widely used in the construction and medical industries. In the field of pharmacy, 3D printers were introduced as a suitable manufacturing method in response to the increasing need for “personalization.” Since the first 3D printed drug, Spritam®, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2015, 3D printer technology has evolved through considerable research. The 3D printing methods are classified into selective laser sintering, inkjet printing, stereolithography, digital light processing, and fused deposition modeling (FDM) according to the printing method. Among them, FDM, which is a method of extruding filaments through a nozzle, is the most widely used 3D printer method in pharmaceuticals. This review paper covers the detail content of manufacturing drugs by FDM. Owing to its ease of use and relatively low price, many studies have focused on FDM 3D printers. In this review paper, we concretely investigate a series of FDM procedures and parameters and introduce many studies that used FDM 3D printers to control the release, to make novel dosage form, and to deliver the customized doses. FDM is completely different from traditional drug manufacturing methods, and it is expected to achieve personalization. Once mechanical problems and regulatory barriers are overcome and new developments are made, FDM 3D printers will become a unique and effective way to manufacture patient-customized drugs in the pharmaceutical industry.

Chapter 2 - 3D printing and nanotechnology

Emergency and disaster medical care often face resource or equipment shortages. 3D printing technology has been proven to be effective in cases with insufficient supply chains. MAYO tubes and stethoscopes are essential components of ABCDE patient examinations; however, 3D-printed variants have not been fully tested. These 3D-printed instruments were substituted and validated in a simulated pre-hospital environment.In total, 26 participants were included in this study. Fifteen clinicians or paramedics with at least 3 years of professional experience and 10 medical students. One student was excluded because he had relevant experience with emergency care. As basic tasks, the placement of MAYO tubes and auscultation with stethoscopes were performed using medical simulators. 3D printed instruments were compared with conventional clinical devices by measuring the time required for the intervention, success rate, and user satisfaction. In the study FFF (Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), SLS (Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), and SLA (stereolithography) 3D printing were used in this study.The times required for implementation and auscultation were examined for each instrument. There was no significant difference between the MAYO tube (p = 0.798) and the stethoscope (p = 0.676). In the case of stethoscopy, the study investigated the correct diagnosis, and no significant difference was found (p = 0.239), although an interesting trend was observed. Regarding the MAYO tube, the study found no significant difference in correct position formation (p = 0.163). The experience levels of the groups did not influence these factors. However, significant differences in user satisfaction were found in both cases in favour of the conventional versions (p < 0.001).Overall, the results of this study suggest that 3D-printed devices could be suitable replacements for clinic-based devices in emergency situations. The 3D-printed devices did not perform inferiorly at any of the indicated points compared to their classical counterparts. However, the practical applicability of the devices used in this study requires further investigation.

Chapter 15 - 3D and 4D printing of biomaterials and biocomposites, bioinspired composites, and related transformers

3D-printed polypills for personalized medicine and precision oral drug delivery in pharmaceutical practice: A review.

3D printing/Additive Manufacturing seems a pragmatic approach to realize the quest for a truly customized and personalized drug delivery. 3DP technology, with innovations in pharmaceutical development and an interdisciplinary approach to finding newer Drug Delivery Systems can usher a new era of treatments to various diseases. The true potential of this is yet to be realized, and the US-FDA is focusing on the regulatory science of 3D printed medical devices to help patients access this technology safely and effectively. The approval of the first 3D printed prescription medicine by FDA is a promising step in the translation of more research in this area. A web-search on PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Nature was performed with the keywords Customized 3D printing and Drug delivery, publications dealing with the aspects of drug delivery using 3D printing for personalized or customized delivery were further considered and analyzed and discussed. We present the advantages offered by 3DP over conventional methods of formulation development and discuss the current state of 3DP in pharmaceutics and how it can be used to develop a truly customized drug delivery system, various 3DP technologies including Stereolithography (SLA), Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM), Pressure Assisted Microsyringe (PAM) that have been used to develop pharmaceutical products have been discussed along with their limitations and also the regulatory considerations to help formulation scientists envisaging research in this area with the necessary information. 3D printing has the potential to fabricate a customized drug delivery system. Presence of many drug formulation and the devices are already in the regulatory approval process indicating its success.

Modern manufacturing is increasingly shaped by the paradigm of Industry 4.0 (Smart Manufacturing). As one of its nine pillars, additive manufacturing plays a crucial role, enabling high-quality final products with improved profitability in minimal time. Advances in this field have facilitated the emergence of diverse technologies-such as Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM), Stereolithography (SLA), and Selective Laser Sintering (SLS)-allowing the use of metallic, polymeric, and composite materials. Within this context, Klipper v.0.12, an open-source firmware for 3D printers, addresses the performance limitations of conventional consumer-grade systems. By offloading computationally intensive tasks to an external single-board computer (e.g., Raspberry Pi), Klipper enhances speed, precision, and flexibility while reducing prototyping time. The purpose of this study is twofold: first, to identify and analyze bottlenecks in low-cost 3D printers and second, to evaluate how these shortcomings can be mitigated through the integration of supplementary hardware and software (Klipper firmware, Raspberry Pi, additional sensors, and the Mainsail interface). The scientific contribution of this study lies in demonstrating that a consumer-grade FDM 3D printer can be significantly upgraded through this integration and systematic calibration, achieving up to a 50% reduction in printing time while maintaining dimensional accuracy and improving surface quality.

7 - 3D printing silk

3D Printing, sometimes referred to as additive manufacturing, has made the concept of personalized medicine a reality. The primary objective of 3D and 4D printing is to produce intricate, customized pharmaceuticals at a reasonable cost. With improvements in materials, resolution, and speed, 3D printing technology is quickly developing. It includes faster construction, cost efficiency through reduced waste, design flexibility for complex structures, and sustainability through optimized material usage. An extensive literature survey was done on 3D and 4D printing of pharmaceuticals using PubMed, Elsevier, ScienceDirect, and Springer. The results were then filtered based on the titles, abstracts, and accessibility of the complete texts. The search engine Google Scholar was accessed for literature data mining. From the data mining, it was found that from the year 2009 to 2024 the number of research publications surged more than 200 times on the current topic. Even though 3-D and 4-D printing technologies have advanced significantly in a short amount of time, the most often used ones are still stereolithography, nozzle-based deposition, inkjet, and selective laser sintering. Their use has been modified for the production of nanoparticles, polypills, tablets, and implants, etc. Pharma's aspirations for tailored medications are being revolutionized by 3D printing, but cost, flexibility, and bioequivalence still need to be investigated. The present review offers a thorough analysis of various 3D and 4D printing methods and emphasizes the major advantages and disadvantages and major key challenges of 3D and 4D printing related to pharmaceuticals. Compared to 3D Printing, 4D printing offers better quality, efficacy, and functionality.

Additive manufacturing (AM) or 3D printing is a digital manufacturing process and offers virtually limitless opportunities to develop structures/objects by tailoring material composition, processing conditions, and geometry technically at every point in an object. In this review, we present three different early adopted, however, widely used, polymer-based 3D printing processes; fused deposition modelling (FDM), selective laser sintering (SLS), and stereolithography (SLA) to create polymeric parts. The main aim of this review is to offer a comparative overview by correlating polymer material-process-properties for three different 3D printing techniques. Moreover, the advanced material-process requirements towards 4D printing via these print methods taking an example of magneto-active polymers is covered. Overall, this review highlights different aspects of these printing methods and serves as a guide to select a suitable print material and 3D print technique for the targeted polymeric material-based applications and also discusses the implementation practices towards 4D printing of polymer-based systems with a current state-of-the-art approach.

While NASA explores the power of 3D printing in the development of the next generation space exploration vehicle, a CubeSat Trailblazer was launched in November 2013 that integrated 3D-printed structures with embedded electronics. Space provides a harsh environment necessary to demonstrate the durability of 3D-printed devices with radiation, extreme thermal cycling, and low pressure—all assaulting the structure at the atomic to macroscales. Consequently, devices that are operational in orbit can be relied upon in many terrestrial environments—including many defense and biomedical applications. The 3D-printed CubeSat module (a subsystem occupying approximately 10 % of the total volume offered by the 10 × 10 × 10-cm CubeSat enclosure) has a substrate that fits specifically into the available volume—exploiting 3D printing to provide volumetric efficiency. Based on the best fabrication technology at the time for 3D-printed electronics, stereolithography (SL), a vat photopolymerization technology, was used to fabricate the dielectric structure, while conductive inks were dispensed in channels to provide the electrical interconnect between components. In spite of the structure passing qualification—including temperature cycling, shock and vibration, and outgas testing—the photocurable materials used in SL do not provide the level of durability required for long-term functionality. Moreover, the conductive inks with low-temperature curing capabilities as required by the SL substrate material are widely known to provide suboptimal performance in terms of conductivity. To address these challenges in future 3D-printed electronics, a next generation machine is under development and being referred to as the multi3D system, which denotes the use of multiple technologies to produce 3D, multi-material, multifunctional devices. Based on an extrusion process necessary to replace photocurable polymers with thermoplastics, a material extrusion system based on fused deposition modeling (FDM) technology has been developed that integrates other technologies to compensate for FDM’s deficiencies in surface finish, minimum dimensional feature size, and porosity. Additionally, to minimize the use of conductive inks, a novel thermal embedding technology submerges copper wires into the thermoplastic dielectric structures during FDM process interruptions—providing high performance, robust interconnect, and ground planes—and serendipitously improving the mechanical properties of the structure. This paper compares and contrasts stereolithography used for 3D-printed electronics with the FDM-based system through experimental results and demonstrates an automated FDM-based process for producing features not achievable with FDM alone. In addition to the possibility of using direct write for electronic circuitry, the novel fabrication uses thermoplastics and copper wires that offer a substantial improvement in terms of performance and durability of 3D-printed electronics.

3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing (AM), represents a rapidly evolving technological field capable of creating distinctive products with nearly any irregular shape, often unattainable using traditional techniques. Currently, the focus in 3D printing extends beyond polymer and metal structural materials, garnering increased attention towards functional materials. This review conducts an analysis of published data concerning the 3D printing of magnetic materials. The paper provides a concise overview of key AM technologies, encompassing vat photopolymerization, selective laser sintering, binder jetting, fused deposition modeling, direct ink writing, electron beam melting, directed energy deposition and laser powder bed fusion. Additionally, it covers magnetic materials currently utilized in AM, including hard magnetic Nd–Fe–B and Sm–Co alloys, hard and soft magnetic ferrites, and soft magnetic alloys such as permalloys and elect­rical steels. Presently, materials produced through 3D printing exhibit properties that often fall short compared to their counterparts fabricated using conventional methods. However, the distinct advantages of 3D printing, such as the fabrication of intricately shaped individual parts and reduced material wastage, are noteworthy. Efforts are underway to enhance the material properties. In specific instances, such as the application of metal-polymer composites, the magnetic properties of 3D-printed products generally align with those of traditional analogs. The review further delves into the primary fields where 3D printing of magnetic products finds application. Notably, it highlights promising areas, including the production of responsive soft robots with increased freedom of movement and magnets featu­ring optimized topology for generating highly homogeneous magnetic fields. Furthermore, the paper addresses the key challenges associated with 3D printing of magnetic products, offering potential approaches to mitigate them.

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology in medicine is one of the new and innovative technology for fabricating 3D models of complex anatomical structures that can be observed both visually and haptically. Patient-specific 3D models fabricated through this process are currently being used for various purposes, including surgical simulation, training, and medical education. Most of the personal use/low-end desktop 3D printers that are becoming widespread are fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printers. Compared to professional/high-end 3D printers, the price of the personal use/low-end desktop FDM 3D printer itself, filament, and running costs are lower; it can lower the economic bottleneck for introducing 3D printing technology into clinical practice, such as surgical simulation. With a desktop FDM 3D printer and a general-purpose PC, anyone can now rapidly fabricate 3D models on their own without having to rely on 3D printing labs and specialized technicians. However, it is also true that FDM 3D printers, due to their mechanical characteristics, encounter many difficulties and problems that emerge during the 3D printing process. Knowledge, know-how, and tips about FDM 3D printers have been introduced in various media, and it has become easy to know about them worldwide via the Internet. However, there has been no comprehensive technical review to date to produce osseous 3D models for use in oral and maxillofacial surgery. In this report, to create 3D models according to the characteristics of maxillofacial and oral surgery, we enable surgeons themselves to create 3D models smoothly by presenting ideas for CT scanning, points to note when exporting Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) image data, how to create optimal stereolithography (STL) models, and problems and solutions for 3D printing.