Advertisement

Post-processing Considerations for Biomedical 3D Printing of Polymers

  • Katie Hardiman
Chapter

Abstract

In the last 10 years, additive manufacturing has progressed from being not just a prototyping technology but a manufacturing technology within the medical manufacturing industry; it has turned many medical manufacturing sectors completely on their heads such as the dental and hearing aid device making industries. 3D printing can create models of high organic intricacy in a relatively short period of time. It has greatly added to the medical industry advancements in visualising and creating complex human or animal anatomies and can be used as an aid for surgical planning and preparation, physician and patient pre-operative/treatment education, medical procedure training and upskilling, medical devices, medical device development, and custom medical device manufacturing. Additive manufacturing (AM) is rapidly growing with advances in new material development, higher resolution, and faster speeds, making it a cost-effective alternative manufacturing solution for many medical applications. The objective of this chapter is to provide some guidelines and considerations of the many steps involved in the manufacturing of biomedical polymers and the main post-processing considerations for individual types of industrial polymer technologies.

Keywords

Post-processing Additive manufacturing Design for manufacturing 

References

  1. America Makes & ANSI Additive Manufacturing Standardization Collaborative (AMSC). (2017). Standardization roadmap for additive manufacturing. Washington: Author. (June), Public Draft.Google Scholar
  2. Boshers, C. (2001). Design allowables. In ASM handbook volume 21, Composites (p. 1). Novelty: ASM International.Google Scholar
  3. Crane, N. B., et al. (2017). Impact of chemical finishing on laser-sintered nylon 12 materials. Additive Manufacturing, 13, 149–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2016.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dizon, J. R. C., et al. (2018). Mechanical characterization of 3D-printed polymers. Additive Manufacturing, 20(January), 44–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2017.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DyeMansion GmbH. (n.d.). DYEMANSION DM60. München: Author. dyemansion.com.Google Scholar
  6. Evans, N. T., et al. (2016). Impact of surface porosity and topography on the mechanical behavior of high strength biomedical polymers. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 59, 459–473.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.02.033.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. FDA. (2017). Technical considerations for additive manufactured medical devices - Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Rockville: Author.Google Scholar
  8. Gibson, I., et al. (2010). Additive manufacturing technologies. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holmes, S. (2017). Textures for 3D printed surfaces shows intent of Carbon to bridge design and manufacture workflow. London: DEVELOP3D.Google Scholar
  10. Hong, Y., et al. (2017). Friction and wear of textured surfaces produced by 3D printing. Science China Technological Sciences, 60(9), 1400–1406.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-016-9066-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. International Organization for Standardization. (n.d.). ISO/TC 261 Additive manufacturing. Geneva: Author.Google Scholar
  12. Murray, K. A. (2013). Exploiting the use of electron beam technology to investigate the effects of irradiation on commodity/medical polymers and to optimise process efficiency. Ph.D. Thesis.Google Scholar
  13. Oskui, S. M., et al. (2016). Assessing and reducing the toxicity of 3D-printed parts. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 3(1), 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. PDJ Vibro bowl LTD. (n.d.). Guidelines for using vibratory bowls to finish 3D printed parts. Milton Keynes: Author. https://www.vibratoryfinishing.co.uk.
  15. Raja, K. (2016). A review on chemical processes for plastics substrates used in engineering industries. International Journal of ChemTech Research, 9(7), 354–365.Google Scholar
  16. Safka, J., Ackermann, M., & Martis, D. (2016). Chemical resistance of materials used in additive manufacturing. MM Science Journal, 2016(6), 1573–1578.  https://doi.org/10.17973/MMSJ.2016_12_2016185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sharretsplating.com. (n.d.). Guide to surface finishing for 3D-printed parts. Emigsville: Author.Google Scholar
  18. The National Research Council of the National Academies. (2014). Chapter: 3 Technical challenges for the use of additive manufacturing in space. In 3D printing in space. Washington: National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/18871.Google Scholar
  19. Verhaagen, B., Zanderink, T., & Fernandez Rivas, D. (2016). Ultrasonic cleaning of 3D printed objects and cleaning challenge devices. Applied Acoustics, 103, 172–181.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2015.06.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Westphalen, D., Roth, K. W., & Brodrick, J. (2003). Fuzzy logic for controls. ASHRAE Journal, 45(6), 31.  https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420035520.ch3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zguris, Z. (n.d.). How mechanical properties of stereolithography 3D prints are affected by UV curing (pp. 1–11). Somerville: Formlabs.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal0157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katie Hardiman
    • 1
  1. 1.Irish Manufacturing ResearchMullingarIreland

Personalised recommendations