Additive manufacturing (AM) or 3D printing has been hailed as the third industrial revolution as it has caused a paradigm shift in the way objects have been manufactured. Conventionally, converting a raw material to a fully finished and assembled, usable product comprises several steps which can be eliminated by using this process as functional products can be created directly from the raw material at a fraction of the time originally consumed. Thus, AM has found applications in several sectors including automotive, aerospace, printed electronics, and healthcare. AM is increasingly being used in the healthcare sector, given its potential to fabricate patient-specific customized implants with required accuracy and precision. Implantable heart valves, rib cages, and bones are some of the examples where AM technologies are used. A vast variety of materials including ceramics, metals, polymers, and composites have been processed to fabricate intricate implants using 3D printing. The applications of AM in dentistry include maxillofacial implants, dentures, and other prosthetic aids. It may also be used in surgical training and planning, as anatomical models can be created at ease using AM. This article gives an overview of the AM process and reviews in detail the applications of 3D printing in dentistry. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 106B: 2058-2064, 2018.

No abstract

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) can provide bioactivity to poly‐caprolactone (PCL), which is an inert polymer used to print scaffolds. However, testing all combinations of scaffold characteristics (e.g., composition, pore size, and distribution) to optimize properties of scaffolds is time‐consuming and costly. The Taguchi's methods can identify characteristics that have major influences on the properties of complex designs, hence decreasing the number of combinations to be tested. The objective was to assess the potential of Taguchi's methods as a predictive tool for the optimization of bioactive scaffold printed using electro‐hydro dynamic jetting. A three‐level approach assessed the influence of PCL/MTA proportion, pore size, fiber dimension and number of layers in pH, degradation rate, porosity, yield strength, and Young's modulus. Data were analyzed using Tukey's honest significant difference test, analysis of mean and signal‐to‐noise ratio (S/N) test. Cytocompatibility and differentiation potential were assessed for 5 and 30 days using dental pulp stem cells and analyzed with one‐way analysis of variance (proliferation) or Mann–Whitney (qPCR). The S/N ratio and analysis of mean showed that fiber diameter and composition were the most influential characteristics in all properties. The experimental data confirmed that the addition of MTA to PCL increased the pH and scaffold degradation. Only PCL and PCL with 4% MTA allowed cell proliferation. The latter increased the genetic expression of ALP, COL‐1, OCN, and MSX‐1. The theoretical predictions were confirmed by the experiments. The Taguchi's identified the inputs that can be disregarded to optimize 3D printed meshed bioactive scaffolds.

Additive Manufacturing or 3D Printing as it is commonly known is increasingly being used in the manufacturing of tissue engineering scaffold. The process allows for just in time production and customization. Hence, optimizing and varying the morphology of the tissue engineering scaffold in accordance to the application is one of the advantages of 3D printing. This paper aims to optimize the surface scaffold morphology by varying the dimensional parameters such as pore size, fibre diameter, orientation of fibres on scaffold and number of layers on the scaffold. The paper makes use of Taguchi’s Design of Experiments to understand and analyse the relationship between the different parameters that influence the morphological and mechanical characteristics of the scaffold.

3D printing or additive manufacturing has induced a paradigm change in the healthcare space. Medical devices, drugs and even cells may be processed using 3D printing. Despite the patient-specific advantages that 3D printing offers, several companies hesitate to incorporate it into the manufacturing process owing to the ambiguity in the regulatory framework. There exists confusion on whether the printer itself needs to be treated as a medical device and regulated or whether it is the end product that needs to be regulated. This article aims to elaborate the regulatory pathways that may be considered for 3D printed devices.