Abstract
BackgroundThree-dimensional (3D) printing is a promising technology, but the limitations are often poorly understood. We compare different 3D printing methods with conventional machining techniques in manufacturing meatal urethral dilators which were recently removed from the Australian market.MethodsA prototype dilator was 3D printed vertically orientated on a low-cost fused deposition modelling (FDM) 3D printer in polylactic acid (PLA) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). It was also 3D printed horizontally orientated in ABS on a high-end FDM 3D printer with soluble support material, as well as on an SLS 3D printer in medical nylon. The dilator was also machined in stainless steel using a lathe. All dilators were tested mechanically in a custom rig by hanging calibrated weights from the handle until the dilator snapped.ResultsThe horizontally printed ABS dilator experienced failure at a greater load than the vertically printed PLA and ABS dilators, respectively (503 g vs 283 g vs 163 g, p < 0.001). The SLS nylon dilator and machined steel dilator did not fail. The steel dilator is the most expensive with a quantity of five at 98 USD each, but this decreases to 30 USD each for a quantity of 1000. In contrast, the cost for the SLS dilator is 33 USD each for five and 27 USD each for 1000.ConclusionsLow-cost FDM 3D printing is not a replacement for conventional manufacturing. 3D printing is best used for patient-specific parts, prototyping or manufacturing complex parts that have additional functionality that cannot otherwise be achieved.
Highlights
Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a promising technology, but the limitations are often poorly understood
One issue encountered during the Fused deposition modelling (FDM) printing process of the vertically orientated dilators was that each layer at the tip was so small that there was insufficient time for the material to cool after extrusion
This defect occurred in all three dilator parts for vertical polylactic acid (PLA) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), despite attempts to manually increase the time between layers such as by slowing the print speed
Summary
Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a promising technology, but the limitations are often poorly understood. We compare different 3D printing methods with conventional machining techniques in manufacturing meatal urethral dilators which were recently removed from the Australian market. Three-dimensional (3D) printing, or additive manufacturing, is a promising technology that can create complex 3D structures layer by layer and is increasingly being used in biomedical and urological research to create patient-specific and geometrically complex. In describing the low cost of 3D printing, many medical research papers quote a price of USD 300 for a 3D printer [3,4,5]. Many clinicians may be unaware of the quality of print that can be achieved with such a low-cost 3D printing method when compared to conventional manufacturing. To achieve a consistent result with low-cost FDM printing a printer cost of 1000 to 3000 USD is more realistic
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
