Progress in Contactless 3D Printing and 2D Material Integration for Next‐Generation Electrochemical Sensing Applications

3D printing metal implants in orthopedic surgery: Methods, applications and future prospects

We aimed to explore the application of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology with problem-based learning (PBL) teaching model in clinical nursing education of congenital heart surgery, and to further improve the teaching quality of clinical nursing in congenital heart surgery. In this study, a total of 132 trainees of clinical nursing in congenital heart surgery from a grade-A tertiary hospital in 2019 were selected and randomly divided into 3D printing group or traditional group. The 3D printing group was taught with 3D printed heart models combined with PBL teaching technique, while the traditional group used conventional teaching aids combined with PBL technique for teaching. After the teaching process, the 2 groups of nursing students were assessed and surveyed separately to evaluate the results. Compared to the traditional group, the theoretical scores, clinical nursing thinking ability, self-evaluation for comprehensive ability, and teaching satisfaction from the questionnaires filled by the 3D printing group were all higher than the traditional group. The difference was found to be statistically significant (P < .05). Our study has shown the 3D printing technology combined with the PBL teaching technique in the clinical nursing teaching of congenital heart surgery achieved good results.

Purpose – An increasing amount of attention is being paid to three-dimensional (3D) printing technology. The technology itself is based on diverse technologies such as laser beams and materials. Hence, 3D printing technology is a converging technology that produces 3D objects using a 3D printer. To become technologically competitive, many companies and nations are developing technologies for 3D printing. So to know its technological evolution is meaningful for developing 3D printing in the future. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – To get technological competitiveness of 3D printing, the authors should know the most important and essential technology for 3D printing. An understanding of the technological evolution of 3D printing is needed to forecast its future technologies and build the R &amp; D planning needed for 3D printing. In this paper, the authors propose a methodology to analyze the technological evolution of 3D printing. The authors analyze entire patent documents related to 3D printing to construct a technological evolution model. The authors use the statistical methods such as time series regression, association analysis based on graph theory, and principal component analysis for patent analysis of 3D printing technology. Findings – Using the proposed methodology, the authors show the technological analysis results of 3D printing and predict its future aspects. Though many and diverse technologies are developed and involved in 3D printing, the authors know only a few technologies take lead the technological evolution of 3D printing. In this paper, the authors find this evolution of technology management for 3D printing. Practical implications – If not all, most people would agree that 3D printing technology is one of the leading technologies to improve the quality of life. So, many companies have developed a number of technologies if they were related to 3D printing. But, most of them have not been considered practical. These were not effective research and development for 3D printing technology. In the study, the authors serve a methodology to select the specific technologies for practical used of 3D printing. Originality/value – Diverse predictions for 3D printing technology have been introduced in many academic and industrial fields. Most of them were made by subjective approaches depended on the knowledge and experience of the experts concerning 3D printing technology. So, they could be fluctuated according to the congregated expert groups, and be unstable for efficient R &amp; D planning. To solve this problem, the authors study on more objective approach to predict the future state of 3D printing by analyzing the patent data of the developed results so far achieved. The contribution of this research is to take a new departure for understanding 3D printing technology using objective and quantitative methods.

Owing to COVID-19, the world has advanced faster in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, along with the 3D printing technology that has achieved innovation in personalized manufacturing. Three-dimensional printing technology has been utilized across various fields such as environmental fields, medical systems, and military materials. Recently, the 3D food printer global market has shown a high annual growth rate and is a huge industry of approximately one billion dollars. Three-dimensional food printing technology can be applied to various food ranges based on the advantages of designing existing food to suit one’s taste and purpose. Currently, many countries worldwide produce various 3D food printers, developing special foods such as combat food, space food, restaurants, floating food, and elderly food. Many people are unaware of the utilization of the 3D food printing technology industry as it is in its early stages. There are various cases using 3D food printing technology in various parts of the world. Three-dimensional food printing technology is expected to become a new trend in the new normal era after COVID-19. Compared to other 3D printing industries, food 3D printing technology has a relatively small overall 3D printing utilization and industry size because of problems such as insufficient institutionalization and limitation of standardized food materials for 3D food printing. In this review, the current industrial status of 3D food printing technology was investigated with suggestions for the improvement of the food 3D printing market in the new normal era.

Advanced 3D-printed phase change materials

Recent advances in 3D printing technologies for wearable (bio)sensors

Graphene is an important nanocarbon nanofiller for polymeric matrices. The polymer–graphene nanocomposites, obtained through facile fabrication methods, possess significant electrical–thermal–mechanical and physical properties for technical purposes. To overcome challenges of polymer–graphene nanocomposite processing and high performance, advanced fabrication strategies have been applied to design the next-generation materials–devices. This revolutionary review basically offers a fundamental sketch of graphene, polymer–graphene nanocomposite and three-dimensional (3D) and four-dimensional (4D) printing techniques. The main focus of the article is to portray the impact of 3D and 4D printing techniques in the field of polymer–graphene nanocomposites. Polymeric matrices, such as polyamide, polycaprolactone, polyethylene, poly(lactic acid), etc. with graphene, have been processed using 3D or 4D printing technologies. The 3D and 4D printing employ various cutting-edge processes and offer engineering opportunities to meet the manufacturing demands of the nanomaterials. The 3D printing methods used for graphene nanocomposites include direct ink writing, selective laser sintering, stereolithography, fused deposition modeling and other approaches. Thermally stable poly(lactic acid)–graphene oxide nanocomposites have been processed using a direct ink printing technique. The 3D-printed poly(methyl methacrylate)–graphene have been printed using stereolithography and additive manufacturing techniques. The printed poly(methyl methacrylate)–graphene nanocomposites revealed enhanced morphological, mechanical and biological properties. The polyethylene–graphene nanocomposites processed by fused diffusion modeling have superior thermal conductivity, strength, modulus and radiation- shielding features. The poly(lactic acid)–graphene nanocomposites have been processed using a number of 3D printing approaches, including fused deposition modeling, stereolithography, etc., resulting in unique honeycomb morphology, high surface temperature, surface resistivity, glass transition temperature and linear thermal coefficient. The 4D printing has been applied on acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene, poly(lactic acid) and thermosetting matrices with graphene nanofiller. Stereolithography-based 4D-printed polymer–graphene nanomaterials have revealed complex shape-changing nanostructures having high resolution. These materials have high temperature stability and high performance for technical applications. Consequently, the 3D- or 4D-printed polymer–graphene nanocomposites revealed technical applications in high temperature relevance, photovoltaics, sensing, energy storage and other technical fields. In short, this paper has reviewed the background of 3D and 4D printing, graphene-based nanocomposite fabrication using 3D–4D printing, development in printing technologies and applications of 3D–4D printing.

Split-Rib Cranioplasty Using a Patient-Specific Three-Dimensional Printing Model

3D printing is not a new concept. The recent advances in printing speed, technology, and material selection are promoting its significant impacts in several industries, including health care. For our medical physics field, researchers are also finding its applications in various clinical aspects. However, the interests still remain in a few academic centers who have the luxuries of owning such an unconventional device in the radiation oncology department, or collaborating with a local 3D printing lab. As the 3D printing technology is becoming an unstoppable driving force in manufacturing revolution, are we also envisioning a future that 3D printing will become as common as a block‐cutting machine in a radiation oncology department? In this debate, we invited two researchers who are experienced in studying the clinical use of 3D printing in medical physics field. Dr. Eric Ehler is arguing for the proposition that “3D printing technology will eventually eliminate the need of purchasing commercial phantoms for clinical medical physics QA procedures” and Dr. Daniel Craft is arguing against. Dr. Eric Ehler is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the University of Minnesota. He is the medical physics residency program director at the University of Minnesota Medical Center. His education and research interests are 3D printing, pediatric radiotherapy, radiation dosimetry, and machine learning. Dr. Daniel Craft is currently a medical physics resident at The Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, AZ. Prior to the beginning of his residency, Dr. Craft was a graduate research assistant and PhD student at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston Texas, where he studied techniques to deliver postmastectomy radiation therapy using 3D printed patient‐specific tissue compensators. He completed his Ph.D. in Medical Physics in May, 2018, and also holds an undergraduate degree in Physics from Brigham Young University.

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies differ from traditional molding and casting manufacturing processes in that they build 3D objects by successively creating layers of material on top of each other. Rooted in manufacturing research of the 1980s, 3D printing has evolved into a broad set of technologies that could fundamentally alter production processes in a wide set of technology areas. This article investigates how 3D printing technology has developed over the last few decades, how intellectual property rights have shaped this potential breakthrough innovation and how 3D printing technologies could challenge the system of intellectual property rights in the future. Patent protection seems to have played an important role in the industrial 3D printing sector. In the newly emerging personal 3D printing sector, the intellectual property system faces new challenges. Developers of personal 3D printing systems and services have to cope with large-scale infringement by end-consumers, a situation well known from digital content technologies. At the same time, the expiration of key patents on 3D printing has arguably contributed to a flourishing ecosystem of open source 3D printer hardware and software. As in other areas of innovation policy, the role of the intellectual property system in fostering innovation in 3D printing technologies is a complex one. It played a beneficial role in some instances (sometimes intended and sometimes unintended), and it may have played a neutral or detrimental role in other instances. Studying the progress of 3D printing technologies thereby also informs us about the intricate relationship between intellectual property and innovation.

The review's objectives were to discuss the understanding of 3D food printing technology, a new way of manufacturing foods, and how this technology can be applicable in the food processing industry. The 3D food printing provides a wide domain of food and nutrition-based applications. The different three-dimensional shapes of a food can be developed without the utilization of any mold by using 3D printing technology. Many industries use this technology to manufacture many distinct products. However, utilizing this technology in food processing to manufacture new foods, such as plant-based meat analogues, represents a new trend. So, it is important to understand the principle of the 3D food printing technology for applying this technology in the food processing industry properly. In this review, the mechanism of 3D food printing, evolution of this technology, ingredients compatible for this technology, pros and cons of this technology and the quality evaluation of the 3D printed foods were discussed in detail. Also, the study provided details regarding the available 3D food printers, specifications, and their price. Achieving the exact texture of the 3D printed foods prepared by conventional cooking methods is a steep challenge for this technology. 3D food printers can produce complex food models, and this technology can design unique food patterns. Selection of a printing method is important because a 3D food printing technique can be an extrusion-based printing, selective sintering printing (SLS) method, inkjet printing and binder jetting and each method has its advantages and disadvantages. Pizzas, cookies, chocolates/candies, plant-based meat/fish analogues and many more customized food products can be manufactured using a 3D food printer. Overall, 3D food printing technology has great potential as a cooking method in the food industry.

Chapter 18 - 3D printing technology in drug delivery

Despite 3D food printing being a nascent emerging technology in the food industry, it has a greater potential in fulfilling commercial and consumer needs. 3D printing has been forecasted to be revolutionizing the technology of the future. Various well-known 3D printing technologies are material extrusion, powder bed fusion, binder jetting, material jetting, vat polymerization, sheet lamination, and direct energy deposition. In context with food, not all the printing technologies are suitable for the printing process as food is a complex perishable commodity that often undergoes desired amount of pre- as well as postprocessing operations. Hence, this chapter envisages the major considerations of the food-printing process, material properties, and selectivity of materials that are suitable for specific food 3D printing technologies. Extrusion technology, selective sintering, inkjet printing, binder jetting, and bioprinting are the common 3D printing technologies used for the food-printing process that are distinct based on the mechanism of binding of printed layers. Understanding food printing technology is very crucial in terms of technical and design aspects for delivering 3D-printed food with enhanced levels of customization. Hence, the present chapter provides valuable insights into the working principles, binding mechanism, and system components of 3D food printing technologies. Certainly, this chapter helps in better understanding of food-printing process in upbringing the technology of 3D food printing to the next level. In addition, the future outcomes in designing multihead food printers and their efficiency in food production through 3D printing are also briefed.

The surgical treatment of retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) is highly challenging because of its complex anatomy. In this study, the authors compared the surgical outcomes of patients with RPS who underwent surgical resection guided by three-dimensional (3D) printing technology versus traditional imaging. This retrospective study included 251 patients who underwent RPS resection guided by 3D-printing technology or traditional imaging from January 2019 to December 2022. The main outcome measures were operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, and hospital stay. In total, 251 patients were enrolled in the study: 46 received 3D-printed navigation, and 205 underwent traditional surgical methods. Propensity score matching yielded 44 patients in the 3D group and 82 patients in the control group. The patients' demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. The 3D group had significantly shorter operative time (median, 186.5 minutes [interquartile range (IQR), 130.0-251.3 minutes] vs. 210.0 minutes [IQR, 150.8-277.3 minutes]; p=.04), less intraoperative blood loss (median, 300.0 mL [IQR, 100.0-575.0 mL] vs. 375.0 mL [IQR, 200.0-925.0 mL]; p=.02), shorter postoperative hospital stays (median, 11.0 days [IQR, 9.0-13.0 days] vs. 14.0 days [IQR, 10.8-18.3 days]; p=.02), and lower incidence rate of overall postoperative complications than the control group (18.1% vs. 36.6%; p=.03). There were no differences with regard to the intraoperative blood transfusion rate, the R0/R1 resection rate, 30-day mortality, or overall survival. Patients in the 3D group had favorable surgical outcomes compared with those in the control group. These results suggest that 3D-printing technology might overcome challenges in RPS surgical treatment. The surgical treatment of retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) is highly challenging because of its complex anatomy. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether three-dimensional (3D) printing technology offers advantages over traditional two-dimensional imaging (such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) for guiding the surgical treatment of RPS. In a group of patients who had RPS, surgery guided by 3D-printing technology was associated with better surgical outcomes, including shorter operative time, decreased blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and fewer postoperative complications. These findings suggested that 3D-printing technology could help surgeons overcome challenges in the surgical treatment of RPS. 3D-printing technology has important prospects in the surgical treatment of RPS.

Multimodal imaging plays a crucial role in evaluating suspected cardiac tumours. In recent years, three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has continued to advance such that image-based 3D-printed models have been incorporated into the auxiliary diagnosis and treatment of cardiac tumour diseases. The purpose of this review is to analyze the existing literature on the application of 3D printing in cardiac tumour surgery to examine the current status of the application of this technology. By searching PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus and Google Scholar, as well as other resource databases, a completed review of the available literature was performed. Effect sizes from published studies were investigated, and results are presented concerning the use of 3D surgical planning in the management of cardiac tumours. According to the reviewed literature, our study comes to the point that 3D printing is a valuable technique for planning surgery for cardiac tumours. As shown in the review report, Mucinous and sarcomatous tumours are the most commonly used tumours for 3D printing, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) are the most commonly used technologies for preparing 3D printing models, the main printing technology is stereolithography, and the most used 3D modeling software is Mimics. The printing time and cost required for 3D printing are affected by factors such as the size of the type, complexity, the printed material and the 3D printing technology used. The reported research shows that 3D printing can understand the anatomy of complex tumour cases, virtual surgical simulation, as well as facilitate doctor-patient communication and clinical teaching. These results show that the development of 3D printing technology has brought more accurate and safe perioperative treatment options for patients with cardiac tumours. Therefore, 3D printing technology is expected to become a routine clinical diagnosis and treatment tool for cardiac tumours.