Environmental and Economic Analysis of FDM, SLS and MJF Additive Manufacturing Technologies

Abstract

In this study, the authors present a comparative analysis of different additive manufacturing (AM) technologies for high-performance components. Four 3D printers, currently available on the Italian national manufacturing market and belonging to three different AM technologies, were considered. The analysis focused on technical aspects to highlight the characteristics and performance limits of each technology, economic aspects to allow for an assessment of the costs associated with the different processes, and environmental aspects to focus on the impact of the production cycles associated with these technologies on the ecosystem, resources and human health. This study highlighted the current limits of additive manufacturing technologies in terms of production capacity in the case of large-scale production of plastic components, especially large ones. At the same time, this study highlights how the geometry of the object to be developed greatly influences the optimal choice between the various AM technologies, in both technological and economic terms. Fused deposition modeling (FDM) is the technology that exhibits the greatest limitations hindering mass production due to production times and costs, but also due to the associated environmental impact.

Main 3D Manufacturing Techniques for Customized Bone Substitutes. A Systematic Review

“…Polymers have also been used as a manufacturing material for 3D structures for bone regeneration. They were used individually, mainly in the early years of development of additive manufacturing technologies (1984) [ 15 , 17 , 52 ], and more recently associated with nanoparticles [ 45 ], antibiotics [ 39 ], and other substances such as peptides and dopamine [ 16 ]. Their efficacy and biocompatibility have been proven in in vivo studies with experimental animals such as Beagle dogs [ 17 ] and New Zealand rabbits [ 16 ].…”

“…Some authors have compared the outcomes gathered by several techniques. Silva [ 50 ] showed that the precision of 3D printing and SLS was comparable and acceptable in both cases; Salmi [ 51 ] highlighted the PolyJet over the previous two in terms of precision, and Tagliaferri [ 52 ] indicated that, among the FFF, SLS and MJF, the FFF was the less convenient option due to the high printing time and environmental impact, which was minimal with MJF ( Table 2 ). Within the additive manufacturing methods, in this review of the literature we found that some of them, such as stereolithography [ 33 , 34 ] and selective laser sintering [ 35 ], have been shown to be successful with regard to bone regeneration through studies in humans, which are the most relevant in terms of practical clinical effects.…”

“…Nevertheless, a great variability of pore size was observed with DIW (from 75 μm [ 23 ] to 1200 μm [ 42 ]) and 3D printing (from 10 μm [ 36 ] to 1000 μm [ 30 ]). With respect to the average porosity, this parameter is not always reported in the reviewed literature [ 17 , 19 , 20 , 24 , 35 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 44 , 45 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 52 ] although it used to range around 40–50% [ 16 , 18 , 23 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 37 , 38 , 47 , 49 ].…”

“…This is a very new and promising technology developed by HP (Hewlett-Packard) [ 52 ]. It is based on numerous nozzles capable of releasing different liquid agents onto the printing surface [ 52 ]. On the one hand, they release a liquid binder and, on the other hand, a detailing agent to improve resolution.…”

“…A lamp then runs over the surface, polymerizing and distributing the heat. Finally, the excess dust is removed by blasting [ 52 ]. The use of this technique in the field of dentistry has yet to be developed, but the results found in other materials are promising.…”