Interesting... Perhaps a collaboration is in the works.
Could this simply be an issue of scale?
Prodways up to a certain size and 3DCERAM SINTO for larger prints?
The ceramics under development mostly comprise alumina and zirconia—high-density materials with good mechanical strength and corrosion resistance—and hydroxyapatite, a calcium phosphate found in teeth and bone. Lithoz has improved upon the latter bioceramic in its new bone graft substitute, LithaBone HA 480. Unveiled late last year, LithaBone increases the wall thickness (from <1.6mm to 10mm) and further reduces minimum wall thickness, broadening the range of its applications.
LithaBone HA 480 also has less overpolymerization but an improved depth of cure, which improves build parameters and induces a more stable manufacturing process. The material also has a longer shelf life and produces easier-to-clean parts.
SINTEX Technologies Inc.’s acquisition last summer of Technology Assessment and Transfer Inc. provided the Salt Lake City-based firm with the necessary processing equipment and novel composite filaments for manufacturing 3D printed implants from its silicone nitride material. SINTEX’s FleX-SN product family can be polished to a smooth and wear-resistant surface for articulating applications, such as bearings for hip and knee replacements. They are suitable as a dental implant material as well, thanks to their bacterial adhesion resistance.
3D Systems made a similar move last spring to diversify its AM capabilities from metal implants to PEEK products. Company executives said the purchase of Kumovis would benefit 3D Systems’s portfolio of craniomaxillofacial, bone plate, and spinal cage applications.
While AM has grown significantly in the orthopedic industry over the last two decades, experts say there are still some large-scale hurdles to overcome before the technology is used to its full advantage—cost, hardware, software, materials, and services, to name a few.
“We believe cost is still a challenge for 3D printing of components that are relatively large, driving low yields on a print run, and where markets are price sensitive, such as hip or knee replacement,” said Dave Anderson, co-founder and business development leader at Mach Medical, a Columbia City, Ind.-based orthopedic medical device contract manufacturer. “Adding to the cost challenge is the fact that, in many applications, 3D printing forces additional steps to the manufacturing process. For instance, 3D printed products will often require printing, heat treatments, cleaning, and inspection as incremental steps to the traditional process. This can add lead time, which will unfavorably impact inventory levels, and cost, which is harder to absorb with product price.”
Juan Chafino added regulatory validations and AM’s part-dependent nature to the list of hurdles the technology still faces. But he’s hopeful for the future, as he believes the technique is still in its infancy.
“As the technology matures, the process and process flow will become more industrial. As the market learns the new design rules and think out of the box, we will see that medical devices are more suited for 3D printing,” noted Chafino, additive manufacturing expert at orthopedic instrument and implant developer/manufacturer InTech, Chatellerault, France. “The future of 3D printing is linked to the advances on software technologies in terms of applications and technology itself. An orthopedic digital twin of a human body will unlock the full potential of patient-specific implants for simulation purposes to ensure the kinematics are optional, which will improve patient outcomes while extending the lifespan of the medical device itself.”
