My Printer

  • The State of the Desktop Filament Market 2026, Part 1: Facehugging AI

    As many as ten million desktop 3D printers may be sold this year. This makes the desktop filament market potentially a significant business. I’ve interviewed key participants in this industry, users, and OEMs to develop a consolidated picture of the current market. I’ve made tables of major filament producers, compared pricing, and done analysis on the materials, prices, speed of delivery, marketing, resellers, and more. Then I used a stealth-mode deep-research AI business intelligence tool to index all pages of filament producers worldwide and all shop pages of 3D printer vendors. The tool indexed all forum mentions and blog posts, discussions, comments, and more about filament. This tool consolidated, analyzed, defined trends, and looked at the market as a whole. The research tool I’m using has capabilities way beyond publicly available LLMs, and delves much deeper into analysis and data. But this kind of capability is sure to become available more broadly.

    So I did my analysis, listened to others to gather their views, and then separately looked to the AI tool for validation afterward. I would not recommend relying solely on indexing, crawling, or business intelligence software to do this. It’s only useful if you can spot errors, understand calculations, and have your own informed opinion. It’s also important to delve deeper when using any AI tool to understand why it makes certain assumptions and performs certain calculations.  And in my opinion, it’s important to form your own opinion in advance in order to make the right query and understand if the tool is feeding you, and itself, the right information. I then sliced and diced the consolidated information in another tool, Google’s Notebook LM tool. I edited the information, removed some sources, and added others. Then I asked Notebook to generate a PowerPoint deck of some of the relevant information. This article was written entirely by me, and it demonstrates what someone can do with AI as a useful research tool. I’d never want AI to be my co-pilot; I want to land the plane, and I need to understand where and how we’re flying. Anyone who relies on AI to run your processes, intelligence, analysis, or judgment in the background without you understanding what you’re doing is an idiot. So I don’t want a co-pilot, nor do I want to cease doing critical thinking and run myself on autopilot. But I wouldn’t mind an AI Loyal Wingman. I mean, it’s not going to fly my plane, but it could take a bullet for me. As well as update you on the Desktop Filament Market today, this article will show you the ability of cutting-edge AI tools to aid and imperil research.

    The Desktop Filament Market State of Play

    Some of the initial filament players, low-cost Chinese brands, have entered into a killer competition with one another. eSUN seems to be weathering the storm somewhat, but other names have disappeared. Generally, we have smaller players, such as local 3D printing shops and national 3D printing-specific retailers, still shipping their white label filaments. In lockstep, the fortunes of Mitsubishi and Keene Village (now Toner) have waned, as they have had to secure new revenue sources and new ways to sell directly. The stores and retailers used to be a large market segment, but have stagnated and dwindled of late. One big player was initially responsible for this: Amazon, which brought in low-cost, semi-reliable filament. Then we have US and European premium brands such as colorFabb, which, through high quality and innovation, are trying to stay ahead. Other lower-priced brands, such as Spectrum in Europe and Protopasta and Atomic in the States, are pushing affordable but locally made filament with high-quality signifiers.

    Prusa has a high-end, incredibly good brand and sells it to its community. Meanwhile, Elegoo (through SLA resin revenue), Creality (via the runaway success of High Speed PLA and Hyper), and Bambu (with ease of use) have shown incredible growth across the budget-to-premium segments. These players are now defining the market. BASF and the other polymer majors, meanwhile, are on the retreat, or have forgotten about us entirely by now. Stratasys has a portfolio of industrial filaments but does not seem to be engaging the desktop market. Evonik and Arkema are also going the specialty route. Another form of specialty is flexible, in which Recreus and NinjaTek have strong brands, and no one has really managed to make amazing TPU work well. 3D4Makers and others, meanwhile, sell high-end filaments for space and defense.

    The above is a Notebook-generated slide based on my scraping data. Now, I agree with the segmentation. But. I completely disagree with the “completely different buyers” part. Sometimes, people, companies, and schools buy cheap filament. Some people use inexpensive draft filament most of the time, but buy expensive engineering materials as well. Some people use draft filament and then buy premium filament for nice things that they will keep for a long time. Also, many people and companies buy filament from multiple sources. I may purchase material from a local store, but will buy from 3D4Makers if I need PCL, from colorFabb if I need foaming, from Spectrum if I need a lot of something, and sometimes from Bambu if I have a great deal. Meanwhile, most of what I use every day is Prusament. So I think that the assertion at the bottom is wrong. What’s more, I have looked through my data, and I have no idea where the LLM got this from. I don’t have a single piece of information that implies this is true, that the filament is so elastic, or that buyers are so consistent. Also, I do agree that the segmentation is nice, but there are lots of firms that buy aerospace materials and cheap PETG. And there are lots of firms that buy PEEK and other premium materials such as PC. So I think that the segmentation does not at all “obscure five separate markets.” So, this nicely presented slide has some order to it, but could be completely misleading.

    Market Segmentation

    The dragons have given us many splendored colors and rainbow filaments. We’re getting more “safer” filaments, recycled ones, and ones fit for purpose, such as rail-certified materials with Fr. Companies like Tectonic 3D are engineering incredibly high-performance materials designed to work on desktop systems. We’re seeing more non-NatureWorks PLA and lower-cost feedstocks emerge, as people turn to commodities to keep margins alive. Some are working more with larger compounders, while still others are vertically integrating more. Chinese players are expanding their distribution and manufacturing operations in (or to) Europe due to tariff concerns. Many European players are turning towards defense applications. PLA Plus and High Speed PLA are profitable but often a mirage, not really delivering meaningful performance in many cases. Filled materials will become more prevalent, and interesting eco-filled materials will do well. Whether the algae, coffee, or whatever actually conveys environmental benefits remains to be seen.

    Print farms are becoming very important accounts for some filament companies. Some farms already make their own filament. Others get good deals from the big Chinese players. More should work with premium suppliers to unlock ongoing contracts at low costs. Quality has risen precipitously across the board. But many low-cost brands still persist with tolerance issues.

    Fault Modes

    Under-dimensioning filament to reduce clogs still occurs, and many brands still have issues with ovality. Filament dryers and user-made dry boxes, as well as commercial variants, are making life easier for users. Many users have become significantly better at storing filament. Packaging is also improving. There are better bags for storing your filament now, and spools are becoming more sustainable.

    Breakage and nozzle clogs are still issues. In AMS-like units, grooving or feeders digging into the filament are also problems. Higher-speed machines have caused some filaments to perform much worse than others. One of the biggest user fault modes now is winding and tangling issues coming about through user error (unpacking and feeding while pushing filament under another wind) and bad winding coupled with higher speeds. Filament clips and correct user unspooling and insertion were nice to have, but currently are important. Adhesion issues have subsided for many users, but nozzle degradation over time and general filament degradation are still issues.

    As you can see above, the Bambu store visits are very high when compared to pure play filament brands. Bambu has caused a wave of people to, in fact, be better at printing and working with other people’s filament. There is also a real convenience lock-in. Bambu and Creality’s apps and overall software experience increase prints and help drive filament sales. I don’t think that the AMS provides a real lock-in or razor-and-blades model. I think it’s smarter than this. I’ve tried many different novel filaments, both on the AMS and loose, on several Bambu systems, and the printers work very well with them. In many cases, the specific settings can be entered very easily. Instead, they make it convenient. And some users, especially new ones and neophytes, love this. Traditionally, in the filament market, we saw that new users remained with the printer-supplied filament for months before venturing out into new brands. What Bambu is doing is collecting an awful lot of user-specific usage information, filament information on aggregate, and trends. A firm that can monitor downloads to the app to the camera can judge different filaments and see what power users are turning to. They can then white-label the right filaments, sell the colors that work, develop missing colors, and focus on grades that perform poorly. Its more of a gap analysis masterstroke than razor-and-blades to me. Its not that you have to use the Gillette razor for it to work. It’s as if the Gillette razor could scan everyone’s face and then develop blades specifically for your skin and face type. This is the true power of the total control business model. It’s not a razor blade, it’s a facehugger.

  • 3YOURMIND Demonstrates that Distributed 3D Printing is Ready at AM Village 2026

    Given that additive manufacturing (AM) is so closely adhering to the classic industrialization blueprint whereby military adoption pushes a new technology to commercialization, I’ve thought for a long time that much of the AM industry’s potential over the course of this decade will depend on how NATO can integrate AM capabilities across all of its member states. On that front, the progress so far has been pretty slow, but 3YOURMIND may have just demonstrated that this is about to change.

    The US-German software company has steadily refined its platform for years through work with leading AM original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), primarily EOS, and defense customers, most notably various branches of the US military, offering digital repository solutions like parts identification capabilities and distributed manufacturing workflow. 3YOURMIND just released an eBook based on the outcomes from its participation in AM Village 2026, the third iteration of the unique workshop put on by the European Defence Agency (EDA). The document showcases three case studies signaling that distributed 3D printing is no longer theoretical.

    Significantly, NATO was invited to participate in AM Village for the first time, a milestone that 3YOURMIND took full advantage of via one of the case studies, which validated the AM interoperability capabilities of NATO’s RAPID-e digital repository. 3YOURMIND worked with defense representatives of the Finnish and Dutch militaries, as well as the Finnish defense firm Patria, to route a part request from the Netherlands to Finland. A “Dutch micro-factory” requested the Technical Data Package (TDP) for a cable clip assembly, issuing the request through the RAPID-e system. Patria confirmed the request, after which the TDP was transferred via 3YOURMIND for printing in the Netherlands on an Ultimaker S8.

    Another case study involved an exhibition of how parts are printed remotely on naval vessels. In partnership with the Royal Dutch Navy, the exercise involved printers from three different brands: Ultimaker, EOS, and French OEM Cosmyx. Finally, 3YOURMIND showed the viability of sending part recipes from a central repository at a Center of Excellence (CoE) to multiple different end-users, including one located in a NATO-aligned nonmember nation.

    The challenges of deploying distributed AM at scale seem to be not so different from the challenges manufacturers face in adopting AI. That is, the difficulties now lie less in the performance of the manufacturing equipment itself, and have more to do with the cybersecurity and network connectivity infrastructure surrounding the 3D printing hardware.

    Interestingly, if done the right way — from the ground up and across the whole operation in a given enterprise — AI adoption could potentially provide the cybersecurity foundation that helps push distributed manufacturing forward. This means that, as the adoption of AI and distributed manufacturing proceed forward, the potential synergy could accelerate both more than would be possible for each in isolation.

    3YOURMIND’s collection of case studies validates distributed AM from a technological perspective as well as from an organizational one. The technical details of the exercises illustrate that AM software and hardware are equally ready to deliver for users with distributed manufacturing objectives, while the setting of AM Village and the participation of NATO, as well as three different AM OEMs, a defense contractor, and various national militaries, are ready to accept the challenge of adopting distributed AM.

    Users are no doubt still going to move forward cautiously, but the takeaway is that AM-enabled decentralized manufacturing has gone from being unthinkable in cybersecurity terms not so long ago, to being a question of how much risk users are willing to take on. NATO seems to be sending the message that the reward justifies the risk.

    Images courtesy of 3YOURMIND

  • Printing Money Episode 40: 3DP/AM Deal Analysis and More with Matthias Schmidt-Lehr, AMPOWER

    Welcome to Printing Money Episode 40. Matthias Schmidt-Lehr (AMPOWER, Executive Partner) joins Danny for this episode and we are very thankful to have him back.

    In Episode 40, Danny and Matthias approach markets and deals largely with AI in mind. AI is a huge enabler for the 3DP/AM industry, but in different ways for different parts of the industry.

    First, Danny and Matthias discuss the desktop 3DP/AM market with respect to industrial users and of course also with respect to AI. Then the discussion shifts upstream to industrial 3DP/AM applications of AI. Along the way, there are some very topical 3DP/AM deals and financings to reference.

    Finally, Danny and Matthias manage to exhaust the limits of AI, with respect to 3DP/AM deals anyway. So, they dive in for a few laps of more general deal analysis.

    Throughout this episode there are a lot of reference to past deals and episodes. Historical references are made to Backflip, Axial3D, Euler, Interspectral, Freeform, Seurat, VulcanForms, Alloy Enterprises, Metal Powder Works, 6K Additive, and more.

    We mentioned Matthias’ past appearance on Printing Money, but also a heads up to stay tuned for some more great AMPOWER content coming to 3DPrint.com soon.

    Please enjoy Episode 40 and check out our previous episodes too.

    This episode was recorded July 14, 2026.

    Timestamps:

    00:13 – Welcome to Episode 40, and welcome back to Matthias Schmidt-Lehr, AMPOWER

    01:34 – Insights on AI and what it means for 3DP/AM

    07:28 – Analyzing the desktop 3DP/AM market and its relevance to industrial users

    09:24 – Meshy.ai raises $50m for AI 3D model generation (BAI Capital invested)

    13:37 – Hi3D.ai raises undisclosed seed round for AI 3D maker creation (BAI Capital invested again)

    17:07 – AI is already an enabler for the desktop consumer 3DP/AM market

    19:54 – Replasia receives minority investment from Materialise and Andy Christenson for 3DP medical devices

    24:54 – AI for industrial 3DP/AM

    29:22 – Phase3D raises $2.9M for in-situ monitoring

    33:45 – FreeForm, Seurat, VulcanForms, and scaling metal LPBF

    37:39 – Limitless Labs raises $20M for agentic CAD

    40:09 – TDK acquiring Fabric8Labs for $400M+ for AI infrastructure

    44:12 – Sandvik exits 3D printing business to carve-out firm Mimir

    48:55 – Spectrum Filaments receives investment from Blue Gravity Capital

    49:45 – HeyGears raises approximately $44M for desktop 3D printing

    51:45 – Rem3dy/Nourished raises GBP 14M for 3D printed nutrition gummies

    53:07 – …and Curify Labs raises $14M for 3d printed medicine

    54:29 – Fabri raises $13.5M  to create digital foundry from Raytheon, Lockheed Martin

    55:49 – Foundation Alloy raises $22M for metal powders

    57:22 – Thanks again to Matthias for joining, thanks to you for listening, and hold on to your seats for the AI wave!

    59:03 – Disclaimer

    Disclaimer:

    This content is for informational purposes only, you should not construe any such information or other material as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice. Nothing stated on this podcast constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer by the hosts, the organizer or any third-party service provider to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments in this or in any other jurisdiction in which such solicitation or offer would be unlawful under the securities laws of such jurisdiction.  The information on this podcast is of a general nature that does not address the circumstances and risk profile of any individual or entity and should not constitute professional and/or financial advice. Referenced transactions are sourced from publicly available information.

    Danny Piper is a registered representative of Finalis Securities LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. This material has been prepared for information and educational purposes only, and it is not intended to provide, nor should it be relied on for tax, legal, or investment advice. Investors should consult with their own tax, legal, and financial professionals before investing. Real estate investments are generally highly risky. They can be volatile, unpredictable, illiquid, and are subject to ebbs and flows and market shifts. Investors also risk the loss of all principal investments.

  • How the World’s Most Advanced Tech Companies Are Using 3D Printing

    3D printing has been around for decades. For most of that time, it was a prototyping tool. Engineers used it to check if a design looked right before spending money on tooling. That changed.

    Today, 3D printing shows up in hospital operating rooms, on factory floors, inside rocket engines, and in consumer products that ship by the millions. The technology did not just get faster. Tolerances got tighter, materials got stronger, and the output became reliable enough to put into products that actually ship.

    Most industries use 3D printing for the obvious things. Faster prototypes, cheaper tooling, replacement parts. That is useful. But the companies at the front of the field are doing something different. They are using the technology to create products and systems that would be difficult, or even impossible, to make using conventional methods.

    Here is how some of the world’s most advanced companies are actually using it.

    SpaceX and NASA: 3D Printing a Base on Mars

    SpaceX builds rockets faster than any other company in history. 3D printing is a big part of why. The company has used additive manufacturing for rocket engine hardware, including 3D printed SuperDraco engine chambers, and other critical engine components for spacecraft. A rocket engine part printed as a single piece can have internal cooling channels that are impossible to machine from a solid block. Traditional manufacturing would require assembling dozens of separate components. Printing collapses that into one part, made faster and with less room for assembly errors.

    Falcon 9 is vertical at pad 4E in California ahead of the Twilight rideshare mission to dusk-dawn orbit. Image courtesy of SpaceX.

    In January 2026, SpaceX went further. The company’s Twilight rideshare mission carried a 3D printing experiment into orbit, designed to manufacture a structure directly in space rather than launch it from Earth. It was a small test, but the direction is clear. The bigger plan is Mars.

    SpaceX cannot ship construction materials to another planet. The cost makes it impossible. So the plan is to print what is needed using whatever is already on the surface. In SpaceX’s Mars colony architecture, 3D printing technologies that use local Martian materials to produce spare parts, tools, and infrastructure are described as a core part of daily life on the surface. A Mars base that depends on Earth for replacement parts will not survive. Everything that breaks needs to be reprinted on site.

    NASA has been testing this on the ground. In 2021, construction company ICON built a 1,700 square-foot simulated Martian habitat called Mars Dune Alpha at NASA’s Johnson Space Center, using large-scale robotic 3D printing with regolith-based materials. Four-person crews have been running yearlong simulated Mars missions inside it, with further missions scheduled through 2026.

    Musk announced in February 2026 that the Mars timeline was being pushed back by 5 to 7 years, with lunar missions taking priority. While the timeline has shifted, development of the underlying technologies continues.

    CHAPEA-1 mission crew emerges from Mars Dune Alpha on July 6, 2024. Image courtesy of NASA.

    Boston Dynamics Atlas

    Building a humanoid robot is harder than it looks. The challenge is not just making something that stands upright. It is making something that can lift, twist, reach, and recover from unexpected forces, thousands of times a day, without breaking.

    Boston Dynamics has been working on this problem for over 30 years. Their Atlas robot, now fully electric, is one of the most capable humanoids in commercial deployment today. It stands 1.9 meters tall, has 50 degrees of freedom, and can rotate its joints 360 degrees, moving in ways a human physically cannot.

    More than a decade ago, Boston Dynamics founder Marc Raibert explained in an interview with IEEE Spectrum how 3D printing allowed engineers to build Atlas’s legs with embedded actuators and hydraulic lines instead of assembling dozens of separate parts.

    “We used 3D printing to create the legs, so the actuators and hydraulic lines are embedded in the structure, rather than made out of separate components,” he said.

    While that comment referred to an earlier generation of Atlas, it illustrates a broader design philosophy. As humanoid robots have become more capable and mechanically complex, the need for lightweight, integrated structures has only increased. Additive manufacturing remains well suited to those kinds of engineering challenges.

    Atlas robot. Image courtesy of Boston Dynamics.

    One printed leg replaces what would otherwise require dozens of bolted-together components. The result is a lighter structure with fewer assembly steps and fewer potential failure points. The current Atlas uses a strategic mix of 3D printed titanium and aluminum components to maximize its strength-to-weight ratio.

    Can 3D printing build a truly human-like robot? From a structural standpoint, yes. It enables complex internal geometries and lightweight forms that traditional machining cannot match. What it cannot replicate is soft skin, natural muscle, or biological tissue. The most human-looking robots today combine 3D printed frames with silicone surfaces. For the structural components underneath, precision CNC machining is often used to finish critical surfaces that 3D printing alone cannot achieve.

    From the Metaverse to AR Hardware

    Mark Zuckerberg’s metaverse bet is well known. Less discussed is how much it has changed. In 2026, Meta discontinued the VR version of Horizon Worlds on Quest headsets, making it a mobile-only app, and moved resources toward AI and AR hardware. The virtual world vision is on hold. The hardware race is not.

    Meta’s Orion AR glasses prototype features see-through displays, hand tracking, eye tracking, and a neural wristband input system, with a consumer version targeted for 2027. Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses have sold more than 2 million units, and EssilorLuxottica plans to significantly expand production capacity by the end of 2026 as demand continues to grow.

    Developing AR hardware requires rapid design iteration. Engineers must repeatedly refine frames, sensor housings, optics, and internal components while balancing comfort, weight, and performance. In such development programs, additive manufacturing is commonly used to quickly produce prototype parts before designs move into high-volume manufacturing. While production versions of smart glasses rely on traditional manufacturing methods, additive manufacturing can accelerate development by enabling engineers to test and refine new designs much more quickly.

    While production versions of smart glasses rely on conventional manufacturing, additive manufacturing plays an important role in product development by enabling engineers to iterate quickly and refine complex designs before they enter mass production.

    Orion, previously codenamed Project Nazare. Image courtesy of Meta.

    SpaceX, Boston Dynamics, and Meta operate in very different industries. Yet they face a common challenge: developing increasingly complex products while reducing development time and manufacturing constraints.

    The technology does not replace every conventional manufacturing process. Instead, it has become an essential tool wherever complexity, customization, and speed provide a competitive advantage. That is why it continues to play a growing role in some of the world’s most ambitious engineering projects.

    About the Author

    Gavin Leo. Image courtesy of Aria Manufacturing.

    Gavin Leo is a seasoned manufacturing engineer with hands-on experience across 3D printing and precision part design. He works at Aria Manufacturing, a China-based precision manufacturer founded in 2010 that specializes in custom injection molding, mold making, CNC machining, 3D printing, and sheet metal services, producing over 1 million parts for more than 300 global customers.

  • Hembased Launches Cold Compostable 3D Printing Filament Made Out of Palm Leaves

    Dutch firm Hembased is launching a cold compostable filament. Cold compostable means that the material should return completely to nature in a regular compost bin that you may already have in your home. This contrasts with industrially compostable materials, which are meant to break down in heated industrial composting sites.

    Cold compostable materials must degrade within a year in temperatures between 20-30°C. They must also not leave anything harmful behind and theoretically should compost in the soil. ColorFabb´s allPHA has led the way in compostable, actually sustainable biomaterials for 3D printing. Companies such as Regen filaments have followed suit. Usually PHA is used, which can be made from agricultural waste or byproducts. PHA turns into water, biomass, and Co2. PHA prints well, albeit very differently than other materials, and has higher Continuous Service Temperatures than many other materials.

    In this case, the material has been made from a palm leaf byproduct. The company states that, “with the launch of this new filament, Hembased positions itself as the first company in the world to offer a cold-compostable, biobased alternative to traditional 3D printing materials.”

    This is incorrect, as it is at best the sixth company with a cold compostable bio-based alternative to 3D printing materials. ColorFabb, Phanbulous, Ecogenesis EcoFab, Regen, and Loopha were all on the market before Hembased. Indeed, Colorfabb released its first blended PHA in 2013, and its Pure PHA variant in 2022. We wrote a nice review paper on making PHA in 2020, while Canadian firm Genecis has been trying to make PHA from food waste since 2018. Genecis has a partnership with Helian, which is helping its related firm Colorfabb make PHA filament.

    Hembased Founder Erik Janssen said,

    “3D printing is a powerful tool for rapid innovation, but current materials do not yet align with what the future demands. We believe that materials should not only perform well during use, but should also have a credible and responsible end-of-life solution.”

    The company says that “one of the greatest challenges in developing and manufacturing the filament was combining reliable print performance with an end-of-life solution that aligns with the principles of circular design. For us, cold compostable means that a product does not cease to be useful once its original function has been fulfilled. Under the right conditions, a printed object can ultimately serve as a nutrient source within a biological system.” Hembased also says that its mission is to “print what you need, use it with confidence, and when it has fulfilled its function, choose an end-of-life solution that aligns with responsible innovation.”

    The palm leaves it uses come from agricultural waste. I hope that they don’t come from palm plantations, which are being used to make palm oil that’s responsible for a lot of deforestation. Hembased says that the material comes from palm leaves that could have been burned but have fallen on the ground. They are then dried and ground into a fine powder using local machines. The powder is then turned into HemCell-granulate, which the company turns into all sorts of things. From that explanation, it does seem like the company is somehow working with the palm oil industry, or at least working with locals to pick up palm leaves at the plantations. If it somehow pays for these leaves, then doesn’t it make palm oil more profitable, which would lead to more deforestation? Or because they’re not burned, is the deforestation less harmful? I guess you can now burn palm leaves in your own home, rather than someone else doing it in Malaysia.

    The company also wants to work with research partners on new projects. This would seem to be ideally for those with a passion for end of life solutions and palm oil. The colors seem nice, kind of Faberdashery-ish natural hues, and are available from €32 per kilo (around $36).

    Images courtesy of Hembased

  • 3D Printing News Briefs, July 18, 2026: Patent, Concrete, Steel Components, & More

    In this weekend’s 3D Printing News Briefs, Massivit has opened its first European Service Center to support its RapidWings platform, and nScrypt was granted a patent for its high-viscosity material dispensing technology. Titan America launched a commercial concrete product line for automated construction, and Empa researchers are investigating how to use 3D printing to extend the service life of steel components.

    Massivit Announces Opening of First Europe-Based RapidWings Service Center

    Recently, as part of its increased focus on aerospace and defense, Massivit announced the launch of its RapidWings turnkey composite manufacturing platform. Now, the company has opened its first Europe-based Service Center to support RapidWings. The Service Center, located in Barcelona, Spain, functions under Massivit’s Europe entity, and will produce and deliver on-demand tooling for aerospace and defense manufacturers. The heart of the center is Massivit’s Cast In Motion (CIM) digital technology, which will help reduce traditional lead times for tooling, like molds, mandrels, masters, and jigs and fixtures, by allowing users to get around current bottlenecks and supply chain constraints. According to Massivit, based on the defense projects the RapidWings platform has already completed, manufacturers can expect a tooling lead time reduction of up to 90%.

    “The establishment and operation of the service center in Spain is a milestone in Massivit’s business transformation and in the transition to the implementation of our international expansion strategy. Europe, led by the sovereign aviation and security markets, is currently facing unprecedented bottlenecks in supply chains. With our technological manufacturing platform, we enable customers to shorten tooling production times from months to just a few days, while maintaining full operational control and cost savings,” said Yossi Azarzar, CEO of Massivit.

    “The Barcelona Service Centre is just the first step in building a global network of service centers and manufacturing facilities in other dominant markets, and we are confident that it will be a strong growth engine to establish us as a key and important link in the international supply chain in the coming years, while creating value for all stakeholders in the company.”

    Sciperio Gets U.S. Patent for High-Viscosity Material Dispensing Technology

    Ken Church and Vanesa Listek at nScrypt headquarters. Image courtesy of 3DPrint.com.

    Florida-based nScrypt designs and manufactures next-generation, high-precision microdispensing and 3D manufacturing systems for industrial applications. Its research and development arm Sciperio was awarded U.S. Patent No. 12,654,396 B2, titled “Pump for Additive Manufacturing.” Direct write manufacturing often use difficult materials, like adhesives, conductive inks, biological materials, and epoxies. Traditional dispensing systems can have a difficult time maintaining consistent flow with these materials, which can negatively impact product performance and quality. Sciperio’s patented technology, which is integrated into nScrypt’s advanced manufacturing systems and forms the basis of its QuantiHelix dispensing platform, makes it possible to precisely dispense highly viscous materials. It combines a servo-controlled progressive cavity pump with a high-precision valve controlled by servo motor. The system is able to dynamically regulate material flow in real time, delivering high-accuracy volumetric dispensing of viscous materials while also improving consistency and reducing common printing defects. 

    “This patent reinforces our commitment to advancing the capabilities of direct digital manufacturing and additively manufactured electronics. By enabling precise control of highly viscous materials, this technology provides industry and government partners with new capabilities to manufacture and repair complex, high-performance products with greater accuracy, consistency, and reliability. It also reflects our continued investment in U.S.-developed advanced manufacturing technologies that expand what is possible in digital manufacturing,” said Dr. Kenneth Church, CEO of Sciperio and nScrypt.

    Titan America Launches Commercial 3D Printable Concrete Product Line

    U.S.-based Titan America, a vertically integrated producer of cement and building materials, recently launched a commercial 3D printable concrete technology line called xForm3D. The patented solution was developed specifically to support automated, digital construction technologies, like additive construction (AC), across commercial, infrastructure, residential, and coastal environments. The idea is to address some of the issues facing the construction industry, like labor constraints, faster project delivery, and the need for more affordable, efficient housing. The xForm3D technology uses automated concrete placement, and offers multiple advantages to the construction value chain, including optimized material use, improved job site safety, more creative freedom through customized forms and complex geometries, and better schedule reliability. The product family is made up of xForm3D Standard for general automated construction; xForm3D Marine for underwater and marine applications; and xForm3D RMX with larger aggregate sizes for ready-mix truck delivery.

    “This solution underscores how Titan America is investing in innovation that drives long-term growth. Our xForm3D technology builds on our core materials expertise while opening new, scalable markets in automated construction, infrastructure resilience, advanced manufacturing, and manufactured and modular housing solutions. As demand continues to grow for faster, more efficient construction, innovations like xForm3D will help expand what’s possible for the built environment,” said Titan America’s CEO Bill Zarkalis.

    Empa Using Metal 3D Printing to Extend the Life of Steel Components

    The WAAM pilot plant at Empa. Image: Empa

    Support structures, bridges, and industrial steel construction endure stress for many years, which results in unsafe fatigue cracks. But it’s expensive, and often impractical, to fully replace these kinds of permanently installed components. So researchers at Empa are using metallic 3D printing to see how steel components can be repaired and redesigned to extend their service life. In wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM), a robotic arm uses an electric arc to print a welding wire onto defective areas, creating a single weld seam and reinforcement in one. By locally reinforcing the damaged parts of structures like bridges, the entire defective component doesn’t have to be replaced, which saves money and is much more efficient. The key is an optimized geometry, which, as Hossein Heydarinouri of Empa’s Structural Engineering laboratory explains, “distributes stresses in such a way that the propagation of existing cracks is stopped or significantly slowed down.” Tests showed that steel plates, filled with two-layer, stepped metal reinforcement geometries and subjected to repeated loading, had a much higher fatigue life than control plates with no repairs.

    “Using 3D printing, we can apply metal reinforcements exactly where they are structurally needed. Repairs save material, energy, and costs,” said Heydarinouri.

    “3D printing gives us enormous geometric freedom. We can specifically optimize structures – for example, to reduce weight while maintaining or even optimizing load-bearing capacity.”

    Heydarinouri’s team is also working on other concepts, like combining metal 3D printing, intelligent geometries, and new materials to create metal structures that yield under extreme loads, absorb energy during the process, and return mostly to their original shape, or at least without permanent damage. This has major potential for applications like metallic damping elements in earthquake-prone areas.

  • Zaha Hadid Architects Print 6M Model with WASP’s Robotic Arm Solutions

    Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA) have successfully used WASP 3D printers to make a 6-meter-tall model of an aircraft control tower. Zaha Hadid Architects’ Tech Lab made the tower in-house for the ZHAviation booth at Passenger Terminal Expo 2026. The design was created by ZHA and made out of PETG. The company used a WASP HDP XL Extruder. The model is not made out of one single piece, but out of 15 panels. The hefty panels measure 1 x 1 meter and took 270 hours to make. A fire-resistant PETG was used so that the model could go to the trade show. 

    The panel has LED lamps inside to make it pop. It’s not made of 3D printed parts alone, but the panels are mounted on a kind of metal truss structure. The whole thing was designed to be portable so it can be taken to other exhibitions. The Tech Lab now has two robots using the CEREBRO system, and both can work on parts simultaneously.

    ZHA was the place where the founders of AIbuild worked before starting their company. So it’s poignant that this seems to mark a kind of move by WASP into AIbuild territory. Now of course, WASP isn’t like other companies. The mercurial Italian firm literally wants to save the world through making affordable, efficient homes out of natural materials. So its path and overall strategies are a bit confusing at times, but make sense if you take into account that the world wants to 3D print the future of humanity. And the company has been so chaotic but consistent that I’m inclined to believe them at face value.

    WASP’s pellet printers have been used for boat interiors, it has made ceramic wall tiles, made an expo building out of natural materials, made a facade for Pacha, a residential home in Japan out of soil, and a 3D printed airport building. A lot of it is very design and architecture led. The firm also makes small delta printers, larger robotic ones, and Cartesian systems, all at many scales.

    In terms of materials, they’re all over the place. The company works with pellets, filament, ceramics, clay, and more. It makes printers for small things, and some of the biggest 3D printers there are. The company also sells materials, and is now offering its CEREBRO system and extruders to others. WASP also sells the pumps separately, in case you want to make a concrete system, for example. You can also pair your printer with a recycling station. So if you’re a systems integrator or already have a robot, then you can go to WASP and get the parts to turn that robot into a 3D printer.

    The WASP HDP XL Extruder is an FGF pellet extruder meant for PLA, ABS, PP, TPE, TPU, and PETG with a 2, 3, or 5mm nozzle. It comes with a hopper and a material detection system, and has a nifty mobile heated chamber that it takes with it as it prints. So there’s no need to heat the room or put a lot of additives in something so it doesn’t warp: the heated chamber gives you better adhesion when it matters. The system has a brushless motor and brushless cooling fan. CEREBRO meanwhile helps you integrate your robot with your WASP extruders. The system works for LDL (screw or Liquid Deposition Modeling) for liquid ceramic materials, or other continuous feed systems for ceramics as well as pellet heads.

    It comes with an app that lets you monitor builds, send toolpathing to the machine, simulate head movements, and actually move the head. Simultaneous control over the robot arm and extruder makes them work in concert. WASP says that it works with “any robotic system.” Helpfully, the firm also helps customers with application development support. The system is in use at several universities, like Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e). It always seems like WASP is working flat out in all directions.

    It’s of course great to have an open platform product. This will let WASP cater to researchers, inventors, and companies at the cutting edge. Through this, it will find out if boat printing is growing, if people are making formwork, and if companies want to do prints combining polymers and cement. So in terms of catering to the bleeding edge of the market, this is a smart move. There are many robotics integration companies worldwide as well, and helping them could be a great business. We know that WASP wants to do it all, but can the firm do it all well?

    Images courtesy of WASP

  • The New Dental Lab: “Three Technicians Can Handle a Hundred Arches,” Says Digital Dentistry Expert Josh Jakson

    Josh Jakson’s path into digital dentistry started long before he had a job title. He grew up around it. His father, a Polish immigrant, started the family’s dental laboratory in Buffalo, New York, about 30 years ago. Before that, Jakson’s grandfather had worked as an engineer in Poland and later in the U.S. automotive industry. That technical mindset helped shape the family business from the start.

    “My dad’s interest in the industry was always about helping people smile,” Jakson told 3DPrint.com. “But our family also came from an engineering background, so dentistry in our house was always connected to manufacturing, materials, and understanding how things were actually made. That really became the foundation of our dental lab from the beginning.”

    Joshua Jakson.

    Before starting the lab, Jakson’s father originally wanted to become a dentist. But his grandfather encouraged him to first learn the technical side of the industry and understand how dental prosthetics were actually made. It was that decision that eventually shaped the future of the family business.

    It led to Evolution Dental Solutions, a Buffalo-based dental lab that now works with crowns, bridges, implants, dentures, and other restorations, using digital tools and 3D printing. Jakson is Chief Case Designer at Evolution Dental Solutions, and President of Evolve Technology, the company’s sister business focused on digital dentistry equipment and workflows.

    Over time, the company became heavily involved in digital dentures, CAD/CAM design, scanning workflows, and later 3D printing. According to Jakson, that evolution eventually turned one of dentistry’s most labor-intensive products into one of additive manufacturing’s clearest real-world production applications.

    Dentures, he said, became the clearest example of how digital workflows could fundamentally change the economics and scalability of a dental lab.

    “For years, denture production was one of the most labor-heavy parts of the dental lab. It required waxing, investing, finishing, carving, correcting mistakes, and a long chain of manual steps. Dentures were always a thorn in our side because they required a ton of hand-touch processing. But that is changing. Today, our team uses digital scans, CAD workflows, and 3D printing to turn denture production into something much closer to a repeatable manufacturing process,” he explained. “We can really make it a much more scalable process. We take the scans and design the CAD using a clear, chronological workflow. We can then go into processing that on a 3D printer.”

    Evolution Dental Solutions uses 3D Systems’ NextDent 300 printer and NextDent materials to produce dentures. And according to a case study he shared during the interview, the lab produces about 20 to 30 dentures per day and plans to scale up by adding another machine.

    NextDent 300 printer. Image courtesy of 3D Systems.

    Jakson said the biggest change is not just that the printer makes the part. The workflow removes many of the old manual steps.

    “With older 3D printed dentures, labs often still had to print a pink base, print or use separate teeth, and then glue the parts together. That was still better than traditional analog processing, but it was not fully scalable. Multi-material printing changes that. With newer 3D printing technology, like the multi-jetting technology provided by 3D Systems, we’re able to make that even more scalable than the last decade in 3D printing,” Jakson stated.

    He described the process as moving closer to batch production. Instead of one technician spending hours on a single denture, a small team can handle many more arches.

    “Three technicians can handle a hundred arches, whereas three technicians back in the day could probably only handle about 20. It increases our manufacturing capability by nearly 10 times that of a laboratory, allowing us to drive down the cost of these prosthetics. That is the larger point: dental is not a one-off application. It is a daily production.”

    Patients need dentures, crowns, implants, veneers, and other restorations every day. Each one is custom, but the workflow can be repeated. That makes dentistry one of the clearest examples of where 3D printing can work as real manufacturing. It also creates new value for patients, so if someone loses a denture, Jakson said, the lab can simply reproduce it from the digital file.

    “If a patient loses a denture nowadays, we could simply press a button and have that product made again. For older patients, especially those in nursing homes, that matters. Repeating the full dental appointment and denture-making process can be difficult or unrealistic. A faster replacement can directly affect nutrition, comfort, and quality of life.”

    But Jakson says the technology still depends heavily on good data and human judgment. The final part may come off the printer with very little finishing needed, but the quality of the result begins much earlier. Scan data, bite records, and jaw positioning are critical.

    “It’s not just a matter of surface-level acquisition. It’s about recording the bite. A bad bite record can change everything. Just a small error in the back of the mouth can become a much bigger problem in the front because of how the jaw moves. If you take that bite record and it’s one degree off over here, it could be three degrees in the anterior zone,” he noted. “That can lead to someone looking like they have buck teeth or a very nice smile at the end of the day. That is why human judgment still matters.”

    Finished 3D printed denture being polished before final delivery.

    Software can flag problems. AI tools are starting to help with bite generation and scan evaluation. But Jakson tells us there is still a line between automation and clinical responsibility.

    “There is still a big part in the process where a human needs to evaluate that. Digital dentistry is not simply about replacing technicians with machines. It’s about changing the role technicians play inside the workflow.”

    In fact, in Jakson’s lab, different people bring different skills. Some need dental knowledge. Some need CAD and engineering knowledge. Others need hands-on 3D printing experience. He said some of the people running his printers came from hobbyist 3D printing backgrounds.

    “The people who run my 3D printers were hobbyist 3D printers. They were very involved in working with different types of maker boxes and all sorts of different hobby-level 3D printers.”

    That transition is also changing the dental lab business itself. According to Jakson, there are far fewer labs today than there were years ago, even as demand for dentures and restorations keeps growing. Smaller local labs, he said, have had a hard time competing with bigger digital labs.

    “Our business used to be 80% to 90% local. Now it’s the reverse. We’re 80% to 90% national and only 10% to 20% local. That is where additive manufacturing becomes more than a tool. It becomes part of a larger change in how dental labs operate.”

    Freshly printed dentures awaiting post-processing.

    Evolution Dental Solutions is not only looking at polymer denture printing. Jakson said the company is also exploring ceramic 3D printing, including zirconia and lithium disilicate, and is watching for more affordable metal additive manufacturing systems for chrome cobalt and titanium restorations. But for now, dentures are one of the clearest examples of what is already working.

    For Jakson, “dental matters to 3D printing because it brings together materials, scanning, design, and repeatable production in one workflow. It lets us explore new materials. It allows us to scale at the level that we need, and it allows us to participate in the advancements in acquisition and design.”

    Dental labs may already be one of the clearest examples of scalable 3D printing in the real world. Every day, they are producing custom parts for real patients using digital workflows and additive manufacturing.

    Images courtesy of Evolution Dental Solutions unless otherwise noted

  • Why Beam Control Could Redefine the Future of EB-PBF

    In Part 1, Ulf Lindhe examined how advances in beam control, point melting strategies, and process monitoring are changing the way engineers think about electron beam powder bed fusion (EB-PBF). In Part 2, he looks at what those developments mean for industrial users, difficult materials, qualification, and the future role of EB-PBF in metal additive manufacturing.

    The laser installed base shapes the discussion

    Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) deserves respect. It is advancing fast, and many of its recent advances are impressive. Multi-laser architectures, higher power, beam shaping, automation, and monitoring are changing what laser systems can do and are a clear reminder that the laser side is expanding its production logic through scale, parallelization, and cost-reduction engineering.

    The larger installed base of L-PBF does more than create market share. It shapes how people imagine metal AM. It influences what users expect from surface finish, material portfolios, support strategies, productivity metrics, software workflows, and qualification routes. That is normal market gravity. The leading process becomes the reference model.

    The problem starts when every metal AM process is judged as if it were trying to become a laser process.

    Electron Beam Powder Bed Fusion (EB-PBF) cannot rely on general claims of being hotter, cleaner, or lower-stress. It has to explain where its process environment creates a different kind of value.

    EB-PBF has a different operating logic. Vacuum, elevated powder bed temperature, electromagnetic beam control, and electron-based observation create another path to process confidence. That will be valuable in some applications and irrelevant in others. The industry needs to make that distinction more often.

    Electron Beam Metal 3D printer JAM-5200EBM. Image courtesy of JEOL.

    EB-PBF development is broadening

    This is visible in the wider EB-PBF landscape. Development is moving into materials where thermal control, cracking risk, evaporation, density, and microstructure become central problems.

    Tungsten is a useful example. It is difficult, valuable, and unforgiving. It has a very high melting point, is sensitive to cracking, and is relevant for demanding applications such as fusion, high-temperature systems, radiation shielding, and advanced energy technologies. Recent EB-PBF research on tungsten has focused on process window control: beam power, preheating, localized heating, scan strategy, and thermal input.

    That makes tungsten useful for the broader EB-PBF argument. It shows that the process can create a thermal environment stable enough to produce useful components in a very demanding material.

    Similar logic applies to other difficult material systems, including refractory metals, titanium aluminides, crack-sensitive superalloys, and certain copper alloys. In each case, the value of EB-PBF depends on how the beam strategy, elevated temperature, vacuum, and process evidence interact.

    That is a useful development. It shows that EB-PBF development has moved from proof of process toward process control. The next question is what different machine architectures, beam strategies, and material programs can unlock.

    The surface finish argument is becoming outdated

    Improved beam control and exposure strategies have narrowed the surface-finish gap sufficiently that it should no longer be treated as a defining process limitation in many serious applications.

    Fine features, thin walls, sharp edges, and internal channeling may still favor L-PBF in specific cases. Vacuum systems, hot powder handling, machine cost, and a smaller installed base remain real considerations. But a process that has moved this far through beam strategy and thermal control should be evaluated on where it is now, not where it was.

    Tungsten nozzles built in eMELT®. Image courtesy of Freemelt.

    Electron-optical competence

    As EB-PBF moves toward beam strategy and process evidence, the origin of the machine technology becomes more relevant. A beam can be treated as a heat source. It can also be treated as a precision instrument.

    If the future of EB-PBF depends on controlling an electron beam with precision, interpreting electron-material interaction, and linking process signals to material outcomes, then electron-optical competence becomes part of the manufacturing value.

    This is where experience from electron microscopy, electron beam lithography, beam control, and precision instrumentation becomes relevant to additive manufacturing. JEOL states that its metal AM system uses electron-beam control technology developed for electron microscopes and electron-beam lithography systems used in semiconductor manufacturing.

    That fact should be read in the context of EB-PBF’s direction. The next phase is less about the existence of an electron beam and more about the quality of beam execution, process observation, and repeatability.

    Machine specifications still matter. Power matters. Build volume matters. Productivity matters. But in difficult applications, the decisive questions sit deeper: how is energy placed, how is heat managed, how is the layer observed, how is the process repeated, and how is change understood?

    Why customers should care

    For industrial users, confidence is critical.

    Confidence that difficult materials can be developed with less blind trial and error. Confidence that thermal history can be incorporated into the strategy. Confidence that scan logic can influence microstructure and properties. Confidence that process evidence can support qualification. Confidence that the machine behaves as a controllable manufacturing platform rather than a black box that melts powder.

    This is most evident where the part is expensive, the material is difficult to handle, and failure is unacceptable.

    A customer evaluating EB-PBF is really evaluating a way to control material formation. EB-PBF’s elevated build temperature and controlled thermal environment can produce parts with very low residual stress and reduced warpage. Support needs can be lower, and stress-relief heat treatment may be reduced or avoided depending on material and application.

    This may be relevant for refractory materials, crack-sensitive alloys, titanium aluminides, high-temperature applications, copper alloys, aerospace components, implants, energy systems, and defense-related parts.

    The economic question also needs to be framed correctly. Productivity is not only the machine-hour cost or the melt rate. It is the total route from powder to qualified part. A process with more stable thermal behavior, lower residual stress, useful evidence of process performance, or a shorter qualification path may create value that does not show up in a simple build-speed comparison.

    For crack-sensitive alloys in particular, this is a major advantage. In some cases, the stable thermal environment is what makes the material buildable at all. Two distinct advantages, one process logic.

    This is one reason the old EB-PBF narrative has been weak. The visible drawbacks are easy to describe. Surface finish is easy to see. Installed base is easy to count. Laser count is easy to market. Process confidence is harder to show but often more important.

    The next EB-PBF narrative

    EB-PBF needs a better industrial narrative. It should be discussed as a controlled electron-beam manufacturing environment in which beam strategy, thermal history, material behavior, and process evidence are interconnected.

    This fits the direction of metal AM. The industry is moving toward stronger process control, richer data, better qualification methods, and more demanding materials. In that world, beam control becomes a central capability. Observation becomes part of the manufacturing argument. Thermal history becomes part of the design space.

    The immediate challenge is practical: connect beam strategy, layer-wise evidence, and qualification practice in a way that users can trust.

    Users who understand this will ask better questions. They will look beyond simple process comparisons. They will evaluate how the machine controls energy, how the thermal environment shapes the material, how the process is observed, and how all of this supports qualified production.

    This is where EB-PBF becomes interesting again. It is not a niche alternative trying to imitate laser powder bed fusion. It is a serious platform for controlled material formation. The next question is what this makes possible in real applications.

    About the Author:

    Ulf Lindhe. Image courtesy of The Org.

    Ulf Lindhe is a veteran executive in the additive manufacturing industry with decades of experience spanning technology development, industrial strategy, and global market expansion. He has held senior leadership roles within the metal additive manufacturing sector, contributing to the commercialization and international growth of advanced AM systems. Over the course of his career, Lindhe has worked closely with aerospace, medical, and high-performance engineering companies, helping bridge the gap between technological capability and practical industrial deployment.

  • Additive Manufacturing at a Crossroads 

    Additive manufacturing is at a crossroads. Simultaneously, we find ourselves between certain very different modalities, applications, and industries. Rather than being able to explore them all, companies will now have to specialize, focus, and concentrate their efforts to win outsized opportunities. Success will be more explosively rewarded but will be more difficult to achieve.

    Three Phases

    We can divide the history of additive manufacturing into several chapters. Initially, in the invention phase (1984 to 2009), several firms such as 3D Systems, DTM, EOS, and Stratasys commercialized their own technologies, focusing on that technology silo and those applications that would work with their machines. Later, from 2010 to 2025, the Hype phase saw an influx of VC, corporate, and SPAC money into the market. Pitchmen made inordinate promises about a Revolution afoot, which saw inflated expectations. Free-flowing money washed over everyone, strengthening those with the best promises and best PowerPoints, not necessarily those with the best ideas, abilities, or technologies. Now, in the Industrialization phase, some firms are progressing with large-scale implementation, while many companies use the technology casually.

    The Desktop 3D Printing Revolution

    Crucially, Bambu Lab is a billion-dollar revenue firm making good on some of the pitchmen’s promises to tens of millions of desktop users. The desktop 3D printing revolution may yet occur. Through better AI-assisted software, millions more people could make. And even without it, we can now see an influx of tens of millions of new users per year. These users don’t care about 3D printing, but they do care about cosplay, art, craft, inventing, and making money. But it would be naive to assume that these desktop printers are consumer devices. Hundreds of thousands of firms are also deploying them for prototypes, spare parts, and end-use parts.

    MakerBot Replicator 2. Image courtesy of UltiMaker.

    There is far too much strategic replication in additive; far too many people are still trying to sell their inventions rather than create solutions. Companies need to look at cases where they can help all of the players in a value chain. Firms need to deliver on value and ease of use, and deliver true performance. Calling your mish-mash of ideas a solution will not solve anything. Just having a weight-saving part is unlikely to move the needle; instead, it may need to deliver on part-count reduction, functional integration, improved flow, easier adoption of design changes, lower up-front costs, and less capital deployed simultaneously. We will have to explore many advantages simultaneously if we really want deep, significant, and profitable implementations.

    Over two million clear aligners are made each day, millions of bridges,  crowns, and other additional dental parts are printed each year, tens of thousands of parts are flying on commercial aircraft, hundreds of thousands of shoes have been 3D printed, hundreds of thousands of prosthetics and orthotics have been 3D printed, and hundreds of thousands of surgical guides are being made. This year, over a million 3D printed orthopedic implants will be produced for spinal cages, acetabular cups, and knee surgeries. We already materialize information where it matters. But, this will accelerate as more efficient industrial machines and low-cost desktop units simultaneously lower part cost. In metal and polymer LPBF, as well as material extrusion and Vat Polymerization, we’re seeing breakthroughs in throughput and lower machine costs. Better, more, and lower material costs accompany this development.

    Invisalign treatment transforms dental problems. Image courtesy of Align Technology.

    With CapEx constrained in many businesses, times are more chaotic, and true globalized competition is now biting; it is time to act. Businesses can become more resilient, more flexible, and more responsive by adopting additive. Through additive, you can help companies better meet fickle consumers in a more competitive environment. Additive Manufacturing is just a tool, but one that can drive organizational change, make companies more competitive, and help organizations adjust to new market realities. You can quickly adjust your products using 3D printed components, tooling, or parts of your assembly line, for example.

    Single Click 3D printing

    But if we are to make additive work, we have to make it more accessible. We have to make printing a one-click process to engage more users. We have to make implementation as easy as signing up. We have to create systems integrators so that companies can have the right toolchain made for them. And we have to as firms own additive applications.

    With unparalleled understanding, adopt additive to precisely outperform any company worldwide with the specific geometry that only you can create (or only you can create at this price point) for that application is the winning play. This will also be a defensible win that can lead to long-term advantage in a particular application. There is a similar opportunity in specific industries that is not being sufficiently addressed. Be the best possible partner in the precise implementations needed for specific people at particular players in hospitals, semiconductor, petrochemical processing, chemicals, robotics, etc. You need to make a tool that is demonstrably best for a task and a tradesman. And then you need to develop the go-to-market best for that person, her industry, her business model, and her company.

    Additive Manufacturing is a tool that can be utilized, but it needs to be used alongside strong value propositions, go-to-markets, applications, and companies. Any chisel won’t do. Just a hammer-shaped object won’t do. A universal pen for everyone will probably not work particularly well for anyone. But a well-made tool that exactly suits the right person’s purpose will win. Right now, with additive, we have to actually use our technology to make the right things for the right industries, applications, people, and purposes. This is something that additive manufacturing is ideally suited for, but given the limitless possibilities, we never thought to make what is best.