A Review on 3D Printing Technology: Literature, Components, Generic

Process, Printing Categories, Associated Materials, Advantages,

Disadvantages, and Research Gaps
Md Nazmul Hasan Dipu

[email protected]

Department of Industrial and Production Engineering,

Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet, Bangladesh.

Abstract: Remarkable advancements have been witnessed in the domain of 3D printing technology
during the past few years. It is a technique that might enhance the manufacturing process by creating
tiny layers of materials from digital three-dimensional designs that are built using modern CAD
software. It has a myriad of applications and is already being applied in practically every aspect of
life. Many industries, such as automotive, aerospace, healthcare, education, and art, have already
embraced 3D printing technology for its power of customization, product’s weight reduction, waste
minimization, and capacity to cope with sophisticatedly designed components. For these reasons, it
may be speculated that 3D printing technology may have an extensive influence on the next industrial
revolution. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to present an overview of 3D printing technology:
literature, components, general 3D printing steps, 3D printing categories, related materials,
advantages, disadvantages, and research needs.
Keywords: 3D printing; additive manufacturing; rapid prototyping;

1. Introduction
By successively depositing material, three-dimensional (3D) printing is capable of transforming a
geometrical representation into physical objects [1]. To put it another way, 3D printing — also known
as additive manufacturing or rapid prototyping [2] — is a process by which intricate components are
created successively by the addition of layers by means of a computer-aided design model [3] [4] [5].
Back in 1956, when Otto Munz introduced one of the earliest concepts of this kind of technique, which
was photo-glyph recording [6]. In contrast, numerous individuals today regard Charles Hull as the
progenitor of 3D printing, given that his patent from the 1980s coined the term "stereolithography" and
facilitated the commercialization of the first 3D printing instruments [1] [6] [7] [8].

In this modern era, because of 3D printing technology’s availability for enhanced performance,
complicated geometries, and easier production, 3D printing is currently accepted by a number of
industrial sectors, e.g., automotive, aerospace, dental and medical treatment, education, art, culture, and
so on [8]. Albeit it’s growth and potential to be a feasible alternative to traditional manufacturing
processes in certain circumstances, it might not seem entirely competitive at the present moment.
Moreover, although it is hard to foretell exactly which sectors will be most significantly affected by 3D
printing, the most probable candidate sectors in the foreseeable future are those that need low- volume
productions of high-value, highly sophisticated parts, such as the aerospace industry [9] [10]. Since
there are versatile domains where 3D printing technology may be employed, it provides new prospects
and brings hope to many possibilities for companies trying to enhance manufacturing efficacy [1].
Moreover, it has the ability to revolutionize manufacturing industries with its capacity for mass
customization of items on a huge scale [11]. In addition to its influence on manufacturing industries,
this 3D printing breakthrough is a forthcoming household necessity; consequently, it offers a personally
customizable environment [2]. Therefore, it may also give a new opportunity to revolutionize
personalized customized manufacturing.

In addition to revolutionize manufacturing, it needs to be mentioned that Industry 4.0 is the expression
of the smart thinking concept for manufacturing environments that was initially suggested by the
Communication Promoters Group of the Industry-Science Research Alliance in 2011. Industry 4.0 is

Page 1 of 21
defined as the fourth industrial revolution, representing a new stage of coordination and supervision of
entire value chains over the full lifespan of goods. In such a setting, 3D printing offers an appropriate
technological solution for quick prototyping with agility in developing complicated designs and large-
scale customization that requires low waste [12]. Thus, the widespread use of 3D printing would enable
industries to incorporate the tenets of Industry 4.0 [13].

To wrap it up, 3D printing technology has evolved in contemporary era as a malleable and vigorous
approach in advanced manufacturing firms. This technique has been disseminated and deployed in
many countries, notably in the manufacturing industry. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to offer
an overview of 3D printing technology: literature, components, generic 3D printing processes, 3D
printing categories, associated materials, benefits, drawbacks, and research gaps.

2. Literature review
There are a number of fascinating potential novel 3D printing research works carried out in the last
decades (during the period from 2014 to 2023). Some of those attempted to fabricate objects by
incorporating gravity force; nevertheless, some of those tried to build a 3D printer free of gravity force
for future manufacturing in space environment as mankind’s possible habitats might be space in the
future. Besides, some researches have been attempted to conduct biodegradable materials in 3D printing
on the earth to keep this planet livable by reducing soil pollution. In this literature review, the outline is
constructed as follows: glass 3D printing and including gravity force along it; gravity-free 3D printing;
and incorporating biodegradable materials in 3D printing.

To begin with Luo et al.’s study in 2014, the purpose of that research was to explore the application of
Selective Laser Melting for depositing glass structures. The study's methodology includes irradiating
glass powder with a carbon-dioxide laser beam to generate particles, scanning the powder bed to form
continuous lines, and creating glass walls gradually. Experimental and numerical modeling studies
demonstrated that the absorptivity of the glass powder stayed practically constant with shifting process
parameters. The significance of that research was to illustrate the potential of Selective Laser Melting
for creating transparent glass objects [14].

Another analogous investigation was carried performed by Fateri et al. in the following year 2015. That
experimental investigation also used Selective Laser Melting for soda-lime glass powder. The process
factors were examined using several test geometries, and a collection of optimum process parameters
was developed and used to manufacture numerous objects. The morphological and mechanical
characteristics of the manufactured pieces were also evaluated. The results revealed the feasibility of
Selective Laser Melting method to successfully manufacture components from soda-lime glass powder
for many purposes [15].

Although items made of glass could be created via a 3D printer, gravity force was not employed to feed
the glass during 3D printing until 2015. In that year, Klein et al. presented a study piece in 2015 in order
to portray optically transparent items that were generated using a 3D printer. A novel printing technique
— gravity-fed glass 3D printing — was implemented in that research. One of the major aims of that
research was to integrate 3D printing technologies with the creation of glass products with acceptable
optical qualities. It was determined that light transmission had very little distortion due to a generally
high degree of uniformity and strong adhesion between layers. It was also noted that if the roughness
of layer surface was kept, it would permit light refraction and scattering, as well as the fabrication of
very convoluted caustic patterns. As a result, the observed behavior gave fresh insights on light
regulation and extra optical features for the printed items. Moreover, it was also discovered that samples
printed in the heated chamber exhibited improved mechanical properties over those printed at ambient
temperature. That new 3D printing technology offered glass production the freedom to find a full variety
of unique uses in numerous sectors, such as art, architecture, and product design. However, there were
some downsides. Firstly, gravity as a feed mechanism necessitated regular refilling of the crucible,
which was needed to maintain the glass level nearly constant. That refilling process was accomplished
manually by observing with the assistance of the naked eye. Therefore, that procedure altered the overall

Page 2 of 21
quality of the print. Secondly, the relatively moderate pressure drop was created by the gravity-fed
system, which limited the printing speed and resolution [16].

Hence, the aforementioned breakthrough gravity-fed glass 3D printing method unveiled new
possibilities in creating parts for scientific equipment, construction components, and art pieces. As a
result, there is more interest in additional research to expand our understanding of nozzle design, high-
temperature printer design, key process parameters, fluid flow modeling, and the constraints of the
printed specimens. However, the melting temperature of glass is extraordinarily high (>1000°C); hence,
the tools and procedures utilized for it are not only costly but also advanced. To tranquillize these
challenges, Leung came up with a panacea in 2017: sugar 3D printing instead of glass 3D printing.
Because sugar's (a blend of sugar and corn syrup) melting temperature (between 100 and 150°C) is
quite low, it decreases pertinent hazards, costs, and knotty procedures. Moreover, another benefit of
utilizing sugar is that the residual sugar in the reservoir and nozzle can be cleaned simply with water,
allowing the nozzle and reservoir to be reused repeatedly in the lab. Further, both sugar and glass have
several comparable properties: optical transparency, temperature-viscosity connection, solidification,
and solid state at ambient temperature. So, sugar may be integrated in the lab as an equivalent material
for investigating glass 3D printing and other molten material-fed 3D printing. Additionally, by doing
sugar, numerous process factors may be explored, such as layer height, nozzle design, printing speed,
multicolor material input, and so on. After producing items by utilizing a sugar 3D printer, it could be
concluded that the produced object displayed complicated caustic patterns analogous to those observed
in glass [17]. Therefore, sugar 3D printing may be employed for gravity-feeding 3D printing research
purposes.

On the contrary, Wang et al. published very interesting anti-gravitational 3D printing research in 2017
that was undertaken to overcome the restrictions provided by gravity in conventional techniques. By
integrating a magnetic platform and inserting polycaprolactone-bonded Neodymium Iron Boron (Nd-
Fe-B) powder material into the printing filament in a Fused Deposition Modeling method, the research
attempted to achieve printing independence of gravity. This revolutionary methodology opens up new
possibilities for 3D printing applications in settings where typical gravity-dependent technologies may
not be possible, such as in outer space or moving vehicles. In the research, the impacts of Nd-Fe-B
concentration, printing angle, and magnetic flux density on magnetic, mechanical, and thermal
characteristics were examined. Eventually, the findings of the produced components demonstrated
improvements in tensile strength, magnetic characteristics, and thermal conductivity with the presence
of magnetic force during 3D printing. This unique method broadens the application scenario for Fused
Deposition Modeling 3D printing, bringing potential advantages for numerous sectors [18].

In addition to the immediately stated study above, another work carried out by Gu et al. extended that
anti-gravitational 3D printing to the next stage in 2019. The research attempted to investigate how
severe gravity and pressure circumstances may impact the Laser Metal Deposition process and the
quality of metal components produced in space scenarios. A three-dimensional transient model was
constructed using Gambit, and subsequently, Ansys Fluent software was utilized for Computational
Fluid Dynamics simulation. Afterwards, the model was inserted into Ansys Fluent, a pressure-velocity
coupling approach was employed to solve the equations that govern boundary constraints. It was shown
that gravity had a considerable influence on the final deposition outcomes, particularly at non-flat areas
on earth, resulting in dripping-shaped depositions owing to gravitational forces influencing the melt
pool development. To acquire insides relevant to gravity, the gravity value was progressively dropped
from 1g to nil g for the examination of future space applications. The simulation findings revealed that
surface tension would rule the melt pool kinematics when gravity was lowered to empty or almost
empty. The deposition anomaly seemed to be more obvious as the gravity value declined. When
reducing the gravity from 2g to nil g, the contact angle would rise, but the aspect ratio would fall.
Without gravity, the metal in liquid state would have the ability to form a sphere with an enhanced
contact angle under the effect of a poor aspect ratio and a large melt pool volume and surface area,
resulting in the inconsistency of the deposition becoming more noticeable. Moreover, the influence of
pressure on deposition synthesis was explored for the hypothetical process environment in a space
atmosphere with a lower pressure magnitude. It was observed that the vaporization temperature of

Page 3 of 21
material will drop with a fall in ambient pressure. It was also noticed that more vapor would be formed
with a lower boiling point in a reduced-pressure environment, and as a consequence, less material would
be deposited on the substrate. In order to alleviate the impact of reduced pressure on the method of
deposition and to diminish vapor generation, it was recommended that lower laser power and/or higher
scanning speeds ought to be employed to mitigate the melt pool temperature and hinder the material
from vaporizing after achieving the melting point [19]. Overall, that research sheds light on the need to
incorporate gravity and pressure effects into the Laser Metal Deposition processes for space
applications and provides the framework for additional developments in 3D printing technologies for
space exploration.

It can be inferred that the severe environment in space, for instance, microgravity, would modify the
printing mechanisms dramatically compared with those on the earth, which will hamper the application
of 3D printing in space. Therefore, another effort was begun in 2020 by Huang et al. to create a
technology for Metal Droplet Deposition manufacturing in space by exploiting an anti-gravity electric
field to regulate the trajectory of droplets for precision deposition on a vertical substrate. Metal droplet-
based 3D printing was chosen because it is a potential approach for metal 3D printing in space due to
its vast advantages, such as wide material applications (tin solder, copper, aluminum, and gold) and the
capacity to produce complicated microstructures. In that work, a droplet horizontal generator (ejection
setup) was employed to create and charge metal droplets. With the help of the generator, droplets were
ejected horizontally and manipulated using charging and deflection voltages in an electric field. In order
to expel droplets properly, computerized numerical control files were applied for deposition routes and
coordinate control. Before printing, computer aided design models were first translated into
stereolithography (STL) format model data. Then, the model was read into slicing software (custom-
designed) and split into a sequence of parallel layers with a particular layer thickness. Meanwhile, the
solid portions of a layer were filled by droplet-deposited routes. Finally, the droplet generator
discharged droplets, and the deposition platform moved simultaneously under the supervision of the
CNC file. As a result, a metal part with the necessary geometry was manufactured. Moreover, a flight
trajectory model was built to study the droplet motion process, which demonstrated that the flight-
controllable zone of the droplet was located in the top half of the electric field. It was concluded that
under the control of the anti-gravity electrical field, droplets could precisely form on the desired vertical
substrate and solidify into the norm morphologies even after struggling an extensive flying travel
distance, which suggested the effectiveness of suppressing the gravity effects on the droplet deposition.
It paved the groundwork for an applicable 3D printing approach in space. That work was pioneering for
droplet-based space manufacturing [20].

It is known that the moon is the earth's only natural satellite. Therefore, when mankind will commence
colonizing space, the moon may become the first extraterritorial dwelling. So, 3D printing under lunar
gravity seems to be very engrossing, for which the manufacturing of habitats, spare components, tools,
and other infrastructure is mandatory. While commercial manufacturing methods are already well
engineered under normative circumstances — gravity and atmosphere—on earth, 3D printing under
lunar gravitational settings has only been studied to a very limited extent. Thereby, in 2021, Reitz et al.
[21] investigated the feasibility of 3D printing under lunar gravity and microgravity circumstances,
specifically focusing on the selective melting of regolith simulants (these are synthetic lunar soils [22])
using a laser-based process. That pioneering 3D printing study in light of lunar gravity showcased
consistent results in sample geometry, mass, and porosity across different gravitational conditions. That
research was possible because the Einstein-Elevator — the drop tower of the next generation, based at
the Hannover Institute of Technology of the Leibniz University Hannover, enables experimentation
under adjustable gravity conditions for more effective space research on earth [23] [24] — provided a
new capability to conduct experiments in customizable gravitational conditions, together with the
required infrastructure and accessibility to modify these scenarios at a low expense [21].

Apart from unearthing the potential of 3D printing in space settings for future possible habitats and
manufacturing solutions, it is also required to look forward to its use in environmentally friendly ways
on earth, such as incorporating biodegradable materials — materials which are designed to deteriorate
upon disposal by the activity of living organisms [25] — in order to diminish the earth's soil pollution.

Page 4 of 21
Catana and Mazurchevici observed that to attenuate the influence of human’s pollution activities on the
environment, biodegradable materials are viable alternatives to petrochemical-derived materials.
Because biodegradable materials have vital functions in preserving the planet by lessening the use of
petroleum-based raw resources and dwindled carbon dioxide emissions. In addition to biodegradability
material solutions, 3D printing provides greater material savings than traditional procedures; hence, 3D
printing can be regarded as a distributed manufacturing technique to escalate sustainability and the
circular economy worldwide [26]. Furthermore, recycling is an essential theme brought up by the
European Union with the circular economy plan for both the environment and the economy [27].
In 2018, Zeidler et al. showed an approach of 3D printing by employing renewable biobased materials,
with a focus on appropriate packaging for delicate components. Waste materials were used in that
research that had no other usage besides burning or energy. Those waste materials were locally available
materials with little or no transportation need and an inexpensive cost. Such materials were wood flour,
miscanthus particles, fruit stone flour, rice husk, and seashell powder. Those components were
converted into powder, and a binder was also added to stabilize the powder particles. To adapt the
material properly, sifting and sizing were undertaken until the distribution curves agreed well with those
of norm 3D printing. It was found that by mixing powder material and binder, mechanical properties
may be widely modified. From that study, it was proven that 3D printing has applicability using
renewable resources [28].

To robust the use of biodegradable materials, research was needed to come with a competitor of
petroleum-based materials. In 2020, McLaughlin et al. carried out research with such a competitor
namely polylactic acid. In that research, polylactic acid was combined with wood flour into several
matrices to examine the particle species (maple and pine), size effect, and concentration (wood flour
quantity) in the biopolymer and component 3D printing performance. Mechanical, thermal, and
structural characteristics were evaluated for the diverse matrices generated in that research. Results
indicated the possibility of employing wood floor as an addition to improve bioplastics, maintain
sustainability characteristics, and modify the biopolymer to be appropriate for 3D printing [29].

Hence, biodegradable materials could be employed for making 3D printing products, therefore, it was
time to optimize the 3D printing machine’s parameters — such as printing speed, nozzle temperature,
platform temperature, and layer thickness — to let the 3D printing machine provide high-performance
for biodegradable materials. Because most of the 3D printers’ parameters are optimized for non-
biodegradable materials. It was the aim of Lyu et al.’s study conducted in 2021. Another purpose was
to examine the mechanical characteristics and responses of biodegradable polymer products created by
Fused Deposition Modeling. It was revealed that the ideal 3D printing goods had the lowest porosity
and the best interlayer adhesion. Furthermore, the yield strength and elongation at break of samples
were also raised. This study presented a novel way for increasing the interlayer adhesion of Fused
Deposition Modeling and the mechanical qualities of Fused Deposition Modeling products [30].

Page 5 of 21
 Fig. 1: roadmap of 3D printing technology during the period from 2014 to 2023.

To summarize, in the last decade (2014–2023), there were so many studies carried out for various
purposes. Fig. 1 illustrates that some works made use of glass as a 3D printing material; some studies
tried to incorporate gravity force for material feeding; some research was conducted to get a gravity-
free 3D printing solution; and eventually, some studies attempted to come up with a biodegradable 3D
printing material. Table 1 depicts this summary.

Table 1: The summary of literature review.

Author Objective Outcome Highlight

Luo et al. [14] To explore the The absorptivity of the Creation of transparent
application of glass powder stayed glass objects by 3D
Selective Laser practically constant printing.
Melting (SLM) for with shifting process
depositing glass parameters.
structures.

Fateri et al. [15] Attempted to use soda- Soda-lime glass Successfully use of
lime glass powder. powder was feasible soda-lime glass
for Selective Laser powder as the 3D
Melting method. printing material.

Klein et al. [16] To integrate 3D Light transmission had Gravity force was
printing technologies very little distortion. employed to feed the
with the creation of molten glass during
glass components with 3D printing.
acceptable optical
qualities.

Page 6 of 21
 Leung [17] To find out a solution The produced object Conducting sugar
for studying glass like by using sugar material as an
materials with low displayed complicated analogous material to
costs and minimum caustic patterns glass.
associated hazard. analogous to those
observed in glass.

Wang et al. [18] To overcome the The findings of the Anti-gravitational 3D

restrictions provided produced components printing.
by gravity in via anti gravitational
conventional 3D 3D printing
printing techniques. demonstrated
improvements in
tensile strength,
magnetic
characteristics, and
thermal conductivity.

Gu et al. [19] Attempted to Findings revealed that Not only gravity but
investigate how severe surface tension would also pressure
gravity and pressure rule the melt pool circumstances were
circumstances may kinematics when considered for future
impact the Laser Metal gravity was decreased space 3D printing.
Deposition process to zero or about nil.
and the quality of Additionally, without
metal components gravity, the irregularity
produced in space of the deposition
scenarios. would become more
noticeable.

Huang et al. [20] To create a technology Under the control of That work was
for Metal Droplet the anti-gravity pioneering for droplet-
Deposition electrical field, based space
manufacturing in droplets could manufacturing.
space by exploiting an precisely deposit on
anti-gravity electrical the desired vertical
field to regulate the substrate and solidify
trajectory of droplets into standard
for precision morphologies even
deposition on a after struggling a
vertical substrate. extensive flying travel
distance.

Reitz et al. [21] To investigate the Found consistent 3D printing under

feasibility of 3D results in sample lunar gravity was
printing under lunar geometry, mass, and scrutinized. The usage
gravity and porosity across of Einstein-Elevator
microgravity different gravitational was also included.
circumstances. conditions.

Page 7 of 21
 Zeidler et al. [28] To conduct 3D By mixing Different waste
printing by employing biodegradable powder materials were used as
renewable biobased materials and binder, 3D printable materials.
materials. mechanical properties From that study, it was
may be widely proven that 3D
modified. printing has
applicability using
renewable resource.

McLaughlin et al. [29] To investigate several By employing wood One of the important
factors when bioplastic flour as an addition to bioplastic material’s
of polylactic acid was polylactic acid to characteristics was
combined with wood improve bioplastics, unearthing.
flour. maintain sustainability
characteristics.

Lyu et al. [30] To optimize the 3D It was found that the Provided a new
printing parameters. optimal 3D printing method for enhancing
products had the the mechanical
minimum porosity and properties and the
the greatest interlayer interlayer adhesion of
adhesion. 3D printed products.

3. Common components of the 3D printing machine

There are several common components that most 3D printing machines have, for instance, a nozzle,
stepper motor, sensor, controller, power supply, display, and frame.

3.1 Nozzle or printer head

A nozzle is an important part for most of the 3D printers [31], from where molten material pours out in
order to produce the continuous layers. The nozzle must be selected accordingly to the kind of material
to be printed [32]. The larger the nozzle, the more mass and surface area available for transmitting heat
to the filament enabling the process effective [33]. However, it may compromise accuracy.

3.2 Stepper motors

As the name indicates stepper motor travels one step at a time, in contrast to that of conventional motors,
which rotates constantly. The stepper motor travels in particular number of steps as per the instruction
supplied by the user according to the necessity [32] [34]. The motor spins in an incremental fashion that
has number of pauses and stages [32]. Stepper motors are extremely vital elements for every 3D printer
[31] [33], since it aids for controlling the nozzle’s position. In other words, all three axis X, Y, and Z
need three distinct stepper motors. Additionally, this motor is important for advancing the feeding
materials for various 3D printers.

3.3 Sensors
Sensors are responsible for sensing different matrix like pressure, humidity, velocity, weight, and
temperature [33]. Sensors send and receive feedback from the controller for a particular action.

3.4 Controller
The controller board is the 3D printer's brain. This board is in charge of the electronic operations of a
3D printer. The printer could not be capable of performing anything without the controller board;
consequently, it is the most critical component of a 3D printer [33].

Page 8 of 21
3.5 Power supply
It consists of a series of transformers, which lowers down the voltage to 12 or 24 volt DC
correspondingly [33] [34]. The rated voltage: 110V @60Hz and 240V @50Hz AC for most of the 3D
printing machine [33].

3.6 Display
As the name implies, it is used to show output.
It is utilized to show the time required for printing, the left-over time for printing, and the
speed of the fan [33].

3.7 Frame
A frame is a mechanical element which is composed of a steel or any other appropriate material for a
stiff framework to retain the components [31] [33] [34]

4. The generic 3D printing process

From the CAD model to the actual part, 3D printing technology needs many steps to accomplish: CAD,
STL convert, file transfer to machine, machine setup, build, remove, post-process, and application [35]
[36] [37] [38] [39]. These steps are illustrated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2: The generic 3D printing process.

Firstly, all components must commence with a software model that completely represents the external
geometry. This can entail the usage of practically any professional CAD modeling. Secondly, almost
every 3D printing machine supports the STL file format, which is considered a norm, and almost every
CAD system can export output that STL file format. This file represents the external closed surfaces of
the original CAD model and is the foundation for calculation of the slices, software, but the output
needs to be a 3D solid or surface representation. Thirdly, the STL file illustrating the part should be
transmitted to the 3D printing equipment. Here, there might be few general processing of the file so that
it is the correct position, size, and orientation for building. Fourthly, the 3D printing machine should be
correctly set up before to the build process. Such settings pertain to the build factors such the layer
thickness, the material restrictions, timings, energy source, etc. Fifthly, building the part is primarily an
automated operation and the machine can mostly operate on with no supervision. Only cursory
monitoring of the machine may require to take place at this period to ensure no problems have taken
place including software glitches, running out of material, or power, etc. Sixthly, once the 3D printing
machine finished its creation, the parts ought to be removed. It might need contact with the machine,
there might be safety interlocks in place to check certain conditions, such as the operating temperatures
are suitably low or there are no actively parts that are rotating. Seventhly, Once separated from the
machine, pieces may require some amount of extra cleaning up before they are suitable for use. Parts
may be weak at this point or they may have supporting features that must be eliminated. Eventually,
pieces at this stage might be ready to use. Nevertheless, they might need further processing before they
are deemed suitable for use. For example, they might need priming and painting to offer a satisfactory
outermost layer’s texture and finish. Treatments could be tedious and lengthy if the terminating
standards are particularly exacting. They may also be needed to be joined together with other
mechanical components to make a desired model or product [35] [36] [38] [39].

5. Classification of 3D printing and corresponding materials

There are so many kinds of 3D printing approaches available in this contemporary era, which results in
the classification of 3D printing methods in order to comprehend them better. There are a number of
systems for classifying 3D printing processes, such as the one proposed by the American Society for

Page 9 of 21
Testing and Materials (ASTM) F42 Committee, which divides the 3D printing into seven broad
categories: Powder Bed Fusion, Directed Energy Deposition, Material Extrusion, Vat
Photopolymerization, Binder Jetting, Material Jetting, and Sheet Lamination [1] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]
[41] [42][43]. On the other hand, 3D printing techniques are classified into four types depending on the
beginning material used: liquid, filament/paste, powder, and solid sheet [40] [44]. In this article, the
ASTM Committee’s seven categories are described below.

5.1 Powder Bed Fusion

Powder Bed Fusion techniques make use either an electron beam or laser source to liquefy and bond
material powder together [1] [35] [36]. In other words, thermal energy deliberately combines certain
areas of a powder bed by fusing [36]. It entails the dispersion of the powdered substance onto existing
layers. There are many materials can be used in this particular area of 3D printing such as metals [1]
[36], polymers [1] [36], ceramics [1], and composite [1]. This Powder Bed Fusion approach has some
merits and demerits. High resolution and good quality 3D printing can be achievable by this way
although it is slow and expensive technique [45]. Several particular types of 3D printing fall under this
category, including Electron Beam Melting [1] [36] [39], Direct Metal Laser Sintering [36], Selective
Laser Sintering [1] [36] [39], Selective Laser Melting [35] [36] [39], and Selective Heat Sintering [1]
[36].

5.2 Directed Energy Deposition

Directed Energy Deposition includes applying concentrated thermal energy to fuse materials by melting
them while they are being physically deposited. This procedure provides for fine control over the
deposition of materials, allowing complicated shapes to be created. A typical Directed Energy
Deposition machine consists of a nozzle positioned on a multiple-axis arm, which distributes molten
material onto the desired surface, where it solidifies. The nozzle may travel in numerous directions and
is not fixed to a certain axis. The material, which can be formed from any angle due to 4 and 5 axis
machines, melting occurs upon deposition using an electron or laser beam [36]. This method may be
utilized with polymers and ceramics, but it is commonly employed with metals in the form of either
powder or wire [1] [36]. While powder is more exact owing to the nature of no preformed shape, wire
is more material efficient [35] [36]. There are some benefits and drawbacks of this category’s 3D
printing. This process needs relatively low cost and less time, but it has low accuracy, poor surface
finish, limitation for complex shape printing [45]. Laser Metal Deposition [36], Laser Engineered Net
Shape [36], Laser Beam Additive Manufacturing [39] are the example of Directed Energy Deposition
3D printing.

5.3 Material Extrusion

Material Extrusion involves purposefully distributing material via a nozzle or aperture to build up
layers. To put it another way, this technique is analogous to 3D printing, where material is extruded and
placed layer by layer to construct parts [36] In this technique, the material is introduced via a nozzle at
constant pressure and in an uninterrupted flow. This pressure must be maintained stable and at a constant
pace to ensure precise findings [35]. Polymers [1] [36] — notably popular for ABS plastic — may be
utilized for material extrusion 3D printing [36]. Material Extrusion method has some advantages and
disadvantages. It is cost effective and time efficient while outcomes of finished parts have poor
mechanical properties [45]. Both Fused Deposition Modelling [36] [39] and Liquid Deposition
Modelling [37] are most prevalent forms of Material Extrusion 3D printing.

5.4 Vat Photopolymerization

Vat Photopolymerization employs a vat of liquid photopolymer resin, out of which the finished piece
is created layer by layer. An ultraviolet (UV) light is applied to cure or harden the resin where necessary,
whereas a platform slides the item being created downwards after each successive layer is formed. As
the procedure employs liquid to construct items, there is no support for structure from the material
throughout the process of building [36]. In this Vat Photopolymerization technique, resins are cured via
a process of photopolymerization [35] or UV light [46], where the light is focused over the surface of
the resin with the aid of motor-controlled mirrors. Where the resin comes in touch with the light, it dries
or solidifies. Only photopolymers materials [46] are suited for this Vat Photopolymerization. There are

Page 10 of 21
some positive and negative outcomes related to this technique. Vat Photopolymerization is unique for
its high resolution and premium-quality results. But very few materials can be employed for this process
[45]. Both Stereo Lithography and Digital Light Processing are Vat Photopolymerization sorts of 3D
printing [36].

5.5 Binder Jetting

The Binder Jetting technique involves two ingredients: a powder-based substance and a binder. The
binder serves as glue between powder layers. The binder is normally in liquid form, and the construction
material is in powder form. A print head rotates horizontally along the x and y axes of the machine and
deposits successive layers of the construction material and the binding substance. After each layer, the
item being manufactured is lowered onto its construction platform. This kind of 3D printing enables
color printing and employs polymers, ceramics (foundry sand), and metals [36]. There are some pros
and cons of this process. It is a quick, simple and cheap technique; nevertheless, resulted items can be
undergone shrinkage without infiltration [45]. Both Powder Bed-Inkjet Head and Plaster-Based 3D
Printing are under this Blinder Jetting category [36].

5.6 Material Jetting

In the Material Jetting category, material is jetted onto the construction surface or platform, where it
hardens and the model is produced layer by layer. In other words, droplets are generated and positioned
on the build surface in order to construct the item being printed, with subsequent droplets added to
additional layers until the full thing has been built. In this style of 3D printing, material is deposited
from a nozzle that travels horizontally over the build platform. The material accumulations are then
dried or solidified using ultraviolet radiation. In the Material Jetting technology, not only polymers are
included but also waxes may be employed [36]. This technique has also good and bad sides. Material
Jetting is a quick 3D printing technique for colorful 3D creation; however, it suffers from exact color
accuracy and uneven circumstances [47]. Multi-Jet Modeling [36] and Drop on Demand [39] are the
instances of Material Jetting 3D printing.

5.7 Sheet Lamination

When sheets of material are combined to make an item, such a method might be termed the Sheet
Lamination process. In this procedure, two sheets are joined together constantly until the required object
is constructed by either ultrasonic welding (for metals) or adhesive (for paper). Both paper and metal
are viable for this 3D printing category [36]. Sheet Lamination has some upsides and downsides. It
provides opportunities for generating larger parts; however, it has low consistency of the surface and
dimensional precision [45]. Laminated Object Manufacturing and Ultrasonic Additive Manufacturing
are under Sheet Lamination Process [1] [36].

Page 11 of 21
 Fig. 3: Seven categories of 3D printing, corresponding materials, and 3D printing types.
Fig. 3 depicts all seven categories of 3D printing suggested by the ASTM F42 Committee. These seven
categories have a blue color in the figure for visual purposes. Additionally, corresponding usable
materials for each broad group are shown in red. Moreover, the types of 3D printing under each major
category are also demonstrated by the purple color.
Furthermore, in light of the aforementioned description, it can be stated that different types of 3D
printing processes require different materials. Among them, first and foremost, polymers are the most
extensively utilized material in 3D printing manufacture. Most notably, nylon is a very extensively used
polymer because it melts and binds better than other polymers [36]. Secondly, metals are another
extensively utilized material for 3D printing. These metal materials include aluminum alloys [48],
cobalt-based alloys [49] nickel-based alloys [50], stainless steels [51], and titanium alloys [52] [53] for
3D printing. Thirdly, 3D printing technology is capable of creating 3D printed item by employing
ceramics and concrete without major pores or any fractures by optimization of the parameters and
establish the excellent mechanical characteristics. Ceramic is robust, durable and fire resistant. By virtue
of its fluid condition before setting, ceramics may be employed in nearly any geometry and form and
particularly suited on the production of future structure and building [1]. Eventually, composites, as
their name implies, are materials that are mixtures of two or more materials, either naturally (in nature)
or created, that can be utilized for 3D printing [36] Composite materials with their extraordinary

Page 12 of 21
adaptability, lightweight, and tailorable features have been transforming high-performance industry
sectors. Examples of composite materials include carbon fiber-reinforced polymer composites [54] and
glass fiber-reinforced polymer composites [55]. Carbon fiber-reinforced plastic composite structures
have high strength, specific stiffness, outstanding resistance to corrosion, and excellent fatigue
performance [54]. At the same time, glass fiber-reinforced polymer composites are extensively
employed for many purposes in 3D printing applications [55] and have tremendous prospective
applications owing to their cost efficiency and high performance [56]. Fiberglass has a strong thermal
conductivity and a relatively low coefficient of thermal expansion. Furthermore, fiberglass cannot ignite
and is not influenced by the curing temperatures used in production procedures, thus, it is extremely
ideal for use in the 3D printing industry [56]. The innovation or incorporation of novel technologies
and materials will dominate the foreseeable future of 3D printing, and there is no doubt that 3D printing
will have a prosperous future [57].

6. Advantage of 3D printing technology

There are plenty of benefits to using 3D printing technology over conventional manufacturing:
sophisticated parts fabricating; reducing processes and resources; minimizing the weight of the parts;
feasible to redesign parts; cutting toolless manufacturing; waste reduction; and eco-friendly production
possibility.

Generally, knotty geometrical shapes are difficult to fabricate by conventional manufacturing process.
However, the convoluted design components can be manufactured by means of 3D printers. Therefore,
3D printing gives the freedom of part design with full of complexity [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] .
Moreover, traditional manufacturing procedures would demand many iterative stages to be carried out
like casting, rolling, forging, machining, drilling, welding, and so on, depending on the complexity of
the objects. As you integrate more functions into a design, the number of these stages may expand
rapidly. However, the number of processes and resources required might be greatly decreased when
employing 3D printing [35]. Further, by being capable of printing a piece that is vacuous and has a
thinner outer shell, which includes interior lattice structures instead of solid material all through, this
drastically abates the quantity of material, weight, and build time [9]. So, 3D printing has the feature to
build light weighting parts [58]. Besides, even a very small adjustment in the design could result in a
large increase in the time required to manufacture using conventional methods [24]. In contrast, it is
also feasible to redesign parts utilizing component optimization approaches; this permits the structure
to be improved with a suitable durability to the cost ratio [9]. In addition, it has the potentiality to
elimination of tolling [58]. Because it is an additive manufacturing process which does not require a
cutting tool to subtract materials like conventional manufacturing process. Additionally, the wastage of
materials can be annihilated by 3D printing method [64] because there is approximately no material
waste during this process. Since, there is nearly no waste production during the object creation, it is an
eco-friendly approach [61] [62]. All of these benefits are illustrated in Fig. 4 by a cause-and-effect
diagram.

Page 13 of 21
 Fig. 4: Cause and effect diagram for demonstrating merits of the 3D printing technology.

7. Disadvantage of 3D printing technology

At the same time, there are several disadvantages to the adoption of 3D printing technology in the
manufacturing industry. These limitations hamper the use of 3D printing technology as a replacement
for conventional manufacturing.

For instance, the use of 3D printing technology will lead to a decrease in the need for manual labor in
manufacturing. Consequently, this will have a significant impact on the economies of nations that
heavily depend on a substantial workforce engaged in low-skilled employment [1]. Moreover, using 3D
printing technology, individuals have the capability to fabricate a broad range of perilous objects [1]
[65] including knives [1]. Hence, the utilization of 3D printing needs to be restricted exclusively to
certain individuals in order to assuage undesirable actions [1]. In addition, anybody who gets a blueprint
will have the ability to effortlessly produce counterfeit items. Because the simplicity of 3D printing
technology lies in the process of drawing and inputting data into the machine, which then generates 3D
things [1]. Furthermore, the capabilities of 3D printing technology are restricted in terms of the range
of materials that can be used and the size of objects that can be built. Only a small number of materials
can be processed and used to create the final goods [60] [62] [66] [67]. The 3D printer imposes
significant constraints on the size of the object being built, such as limitations on the printing bed
dimensions [62] [68] [69]. In some cases, certain components may require printing support during the
3D printing process, which necessitates cleaning after the printing operation has been completed. An
important drawback of post-processing is the requirement for time-consuming tasks, which may lead to
an increase in both production time and expense [57]. Apart from them, it is viable for low volume
production compared to traditional manufacturing [62] [70]. Traditional manufacturing procedures, for
instance, injection molding and compression molding, still dominate mass production [70]. It may be
realized that the lack of repeatability [60] is one of the main challenges connected with 3D printing,
owing to the tiny degree of accuracy involved in varying repeatability while making consecutive batches
of identical components. In addition, the quality of surface finishing on the 3D-printed items is not
satisfactory enough due to layer-by-layer fabrication [71] [72]. This layer-by-layer production gives the
components lower strength, precision, and gloss on the surface [58] [59]. All of these drawbacks are
presented in Fig. 4 by a cause-and-effect diagram.

Page 14 of 21
 Fig. 5: Cause and effect diagram for demonstrating demerits of the 3D printing technology.

8. Research gaps and potential future works

1. In the work of Klein et al., gravity feed glass 3D printing was a need for regular recharging of
the crucible, and it was executed manually [16], therefore an automated recharging way can be
carried out in future work to get the better quality of output.
2. Furthermore, in light of Klein et al.’s study, it might be attempted to enhance the pressure of
molten glass beside gravity feeding for higher printing speed and resolution in the forthcoming
research.
3. Apart from Leung et al.’s work, additional empirical investigations are required to understand
the factors in the sugar recipe that influence the viscosity and perhaps adjust the composition
for a greater cooling rate and printing speed[17].
4. The printed sugar objects were particularly hygroscopic in Leung et al.’s examination. In the
presence of humid air, the outermost layer turned sticky within hours and might even
disintegrate in the moisture it absorbs. Thus, future studies may look at the use of an anti-
inflammatory agent to decrease this undesired impact [17].
5. It is interesting to see the usage of such kinds of novel biodegradable materials by 3D printing
in the forthcoming study, which materials will have durability for an acceptable product life.
6. As Current 3D printers can create dangerous items if the corresponding CAD file is given to
them [1], thus, an artificial intelligent could be integrated on the 3D printing machine’s built-
in operation system software.
7. To support the Gu et al.’s study, future research could focus on further refining the
computational models to account for additional complexities in the Laser Metal Deposition
process under extreme gravity and pressure conditions. As that study was based on
Computation Fluid Dynamics simulation instead of actual experiment in the space, therefore,
more supporting cross studies are needed in order to validate the proposition.
8. In addition to Huang et al.'s study on Metal Droplet Deposition fabrication using an anti-gravity
electric field, more research is needed to examine optimal deposition parameter configurations,
improve surface roughness of fabricated components, and eradicate porosity content under
vacuum and microgravity [20]
9. 3D printing technology has lack of repeatability [60], so future research may focus to come out
with a feature for repeatability. So that identical parts can be made.

Page 15 of 21
9. Conclusion
Remarkable advancements have been witnessed in the domain of 3D printing technology during the
past few years. From the literature review of the last decade, it can be noticed that many novel research
studies pertinent to 3D printing techniques have been conducted for using glass materials, incorporating
gravity force to feed the printing materials, unearthing the independence of gravity, ignoring
atmosphere pressure for future manufacturing in space, and employing biodegradable materials for
environmentally friendly production.

There are some common modules for the 3D printing machine, and there are eight generic steps
involved in the printing process. Moreover, 3D printing methods can be classified into seven broad
categories, each with corresponding materials. Additionally, albeit there are some advantages to this 3D
printing technique, several considerable disadvantages also exist. Therefore, to apply 3D printing
technology more widely, many significant future research projects are essential.

Funding
The authors did not receive any founding or support from any organization or institution.

Credit authorship contribution statement

Md Nazmul Hasan Dipu wrote this entire manuscript and created all necessary figures.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The author declares that there are no competing interests.

Acknowledgements
Not applicable in this section.

Reference
[1] N. Shahrubudin, T. C. Lee, and R. Ramlan, “An overview on 3D printing technology:
Technological, materials, and applications,” in Procedia Manufacturing, Elsevier B.V., 2019, pp.
1286–1296. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2019.06.089.

[2] S. M. Saptarshi and Dr. C. Zhou, “Basics of 3D Printing,” in 3D Printing in Orthopaedic Surgery,
M. Dipaola and F. M. Wodajo, Eds., Elsevier, 2019, pp. 17–30. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-
58118-9.00002-6.

[3] L. Qi, J. Luo, H. Shen, and H. Lian, Metal Micro-Droplet Based 3D Printing Technology.
Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-0965-0.

[4] C. W. J. Lim, K. Q. Le, Q. Lu, and C. H. Wong, “An Overview of 3-D Printing in Manufacturing,
Aerospace, and Automotive Industries,” IEEE Potentials, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 18–22, Jul. 2016,
doi: 10.1109/MPOT.2016.2540098.

[5] S. A. M. Tofail, E. P. Koumoulos, A. Bandyopadhyay, S. Bose, L. O’Donoghue, and C. Charitidis,

“Additive manufacturing: scientific and technological challenges, market uptake and
opportunities,” Materials Today, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 22–37, Jan. 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.mattod.2017.07.001.

[6] S. Pollack et al., “Polymer-Based Additive Manufacturing: Historical Developments, Process

Types and Material Considerations,” in Polymer-Based Additive Manufacturing, Cham:
Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 1–22. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-24532-0_1.

Page 16 of 21
[7] P. Holzmann, R. J. Breitenecker, A. A. Soomro, and E. J. Schwarz, “User entrepreneur business
models in 3D printing,” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, vol. 28, no. 1, pp.
75–94, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-12-2015-0115.

[8] Z. Lv, “Stories From China,” IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 35–37, Nov.
2023, doi: 10.1109/MEI.2023.10286138.

[9] D. J. Thomas and T. C. Claypole, “3-D Printing,” in Printing on Polymers: Fundamentals and
Applications, Elsevier Inc., 2015, pp. 293–306. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-37468-2.00018-X.

[10] Ö. Keleş, C. W. Blevins, and K. J. Bowman, “Effect of build orientation on the mechanical
reliability of 3D printed ABS,” Rapid Prototyp J, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 320–328, Mar. 2017, doi:
10.1108/RPJ-09-2015-0122.

[11] C. Schubert, M. C. Van Langeveld, and L. A. Donoso, “Innovations in 3D printing: A 3D

overview from optics to organs,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 159–
161, Feb. 2014, doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304446.

[12] A. Sachdeva, R. Agrawal, C. Chaudhary, D. Siddhpuria, D. Kashyap, and S. Timung,

“Sustainability of 3D printing in industry 4.0,” in 3D Printing Technology for Water Treatment
Applications, Elsevier, 2023, pp. 229–251. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-99861-1.00010-2.

[13] A. Malik, M. I. Ul Haq, A. Raina, and K. Gupta, “3D printing towards implementing Industry
4.0: sustainability aspects, barriers and challenges,” Industrial Robot: the international journal
of robotics research and application, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 491–511, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1108/IR-
10-2021-0247.

[14] J. Luo, H. Pan, and E. C. Kinzel, “Additive Manufacturing of Glass,” Journal of Manufacturing
Science and Engineering, Transactions of the ASME, vol. 136, no. 6, Dec. 2014, doi:
10.1115/1.4028531.

[15] M. Fateri and A. Gebhardt, “Selective Laser Melting of soda-lime glass powder,” Int J Appl
Ceram Technol, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 53–61, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1111/ijac.12338.

[16] J. Klein et al., “Additive Manufacturing of Optically Transparent Glass,” 3D Print Addit Manuf,
vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 92–105, Sep. 2015, doi: 10.1089/3dp.2015.0021.

[17] P. Y. V. Leung, “Sugar 3D Printing: Additive Manufacturing with Molten Sugar for Investigating
Molten Material Fed Printing,” 3D Print Addit Manuf, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 13–18, Mar. 2017, doi:
10.1089/3dp.2016.0045.

[18] J. Wang et al., “Anti-gravitational 3D printing of polycaprolactone-bonded Nd-Fe-B based on

fused deposition modeling,” J Alloys Compd, vol. 715, pp. 146–153, 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.04.210.

[19] H. Gu and L. Li, “Computational fluid dynamic simulation of gravity and pressure effects in
laser metal deposition for potential additive manufacturing in space,” Int J Heat Mass Transf,
vol. 140, pp. 51–65, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.05.081.

[20] J. Huang, L. Qi, J. Luo, L. Zhao, and H. Yi, “Suppression of gravity effects on metal droplet
deposition manufacturing by an anti-gravity electric field,” Int J Mach Tools Manuf, vol. 148,
Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2019.103474.

Page 17 of 21
[21] B. Reitz et al., “Additive Manufacturing Under Lunar Gravity and Microgravity,” Microgravity
Sci Technol, vol. 33, no. 2, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s12217-021-09878-4.

[22] L. A. Taylor, C. M. Pieters, and D. Britt, “Evaluations of lunar regolith simulants,” Planet Space
Sci, vol. 126, pp. 1–7, Jul. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2016.04.005.

[23] C. Lotz, T. Froböse, A. Wanner, L. Overmeyer, and W. Ertmer, “Einstein-Elevator: A New Facility
for Research from μg to 5g,” Gravitational and Space Research, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 11–27, Dec.
2017, doi: 10.2478/gsr-2017-0007.

[24] C. Lotz, Y. Wessarges, J. Hermsdorf, W. Ertmer, and L. Overmeyer, “Novel active driven drop
tower facility for microgravity experiments investigating production technologies on the
example of substrate-free additive manufacturing,” Advances in Space Research, vol. 61, no.
8, pp. 1967–1974, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2018.01.010.

[25] R. A. Gross and B. Kalra, “Biodegradable Polymers for the Environment,” Science (1979), vol.
297, no. 5582, pp. 803–807, Aug. 2002, doi: 10.1126/science.297.5582.803.

[26] M. Catana and S.-N. Mazurchevici, “CHARACTERIZATION OF BICOMPONENT 3D PRINTING

TECHNOLOGIES OF BIODEGRADABLE MATERIALS,” International Journal of Manufacturing
Economics and Management, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 18–37, Dec. 2022, doi:
10.54684/ijmem.2022.2.2.18.

[27] J. Pakkanen, D. Manfredi, P. Minetola, and L. Iuliano, “About the Use of Recycled or
Biodegradable Filaments for Sustainability of 3D Printing,” 2017, pp. 776–785. doi:
10.1007/978-3-319-57078-5_73.

[28] H. Zeidler, D. Klemm, F. Böttger-Hiller, S. Fritsch, M. J. Le Guen, and S. Singamneni, “3D

printing of biodegradable parts using renewable biobased materials,” Procedia Manuf, vol. 21,
pp. 117–124, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.02.101.

[29] K. McLaughlin, A. Webb, K. Brӓtt, and D. Saloni, “Bioplastic Modified with Woodflour for
Additive Manufacturing,” 2020, pp. 86–94. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-51981-0_11.

[30] Y. Lyu, H. Zhao, X. Wen, L. Lin, A. K. Schlarb, and X. Shi, “Optimization of 3D printing
parameters for high-performance biodegradable materials,” J Appl Polym Sci, vol. 138, no. 32,
Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1002/app.50782.

[31] Md. M. Hoque, Md. M. H. Jony, Md. M. Hasan, and M. H. Kabir, “Design and Implementation
of an FDM Based 3D Printer,” in 2019 International Conference on Computer, Communication,
Chemical, Materials and Electronic Engineering (IC4ME2), IEEE, Jul. 2019, pp. 1–5. doi:
10.1109/IC4ME247184.2019.9036538.

[32] P. Sevvel et al., “Design and Fabrication of Innovative Desktop 3D Printing Machine,” Mater
Today Proc, vol. 22, pp. 3240–3249, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.03.284.

[33] S. Kiranlal, V. M. Brathikan, B. Anandh, and S. Vikash, “A Review on Electrical and Electronics
Part of 3D Printer,” IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng, vol. 1228, no. 1, p. 012007, Mar. 2022, doi:
10.1088/1757-899X/1228/1/012007.

[34] Krishnanand, S. Soni, and M. Taufik, “Design and assembly of fused filament fabrication (FFF)
3D printers,” Mater Today Proc, vol. 46, pp. 5233–5241, 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.matpr.2020.08.627.

Page 18 of 21
[35] I. Gibson, D. W. Rosen, and B. Stucker, Additive Manufacturing Technologies. Boston, MA:
Springer US, 2010. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1120-9.

[36] K. Reddy and S. Tolcha, “ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES,” International Journal

of Management, Information Technology and Engineering, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 89–112, Apr.
2019.

[37] Y. W. Adugna, A. D. Akessa, and H. G. Lemu, “Overview study on challenges of additive

manufacturing for a healthcare application,” IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng, vol. 1201, no. 1, p.
012041, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/1201/1/012041.

[38] R. Kawalkar, H. K. Dubey, and S. P. Lokhande, “A review for advancements in standardization

for additive manufacturing,” Mater Today Proc, vol. 50, pp. 1983–1990, 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.matpr.2021.09.333.

[39] E. M. Sefene, “State-of-the-art of selective laser melting process: A comprehensive review,” J

Manuf Syst, vol. 63, pp. 250–274, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.04.002.

[40] M. D. Toksarı and G. Toğa, “Single batch processing machine scheduling with sequence-
dependent setup times and multi-material parts in additive manufacturing,” CIRP J Manuf Sci
Technol, vol. 37, pp. 302–311, May 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.cirpj.2022.02.007.

[41] S. Karimi, S. Kwon, and F. Ning, “Energy-aware production scheduling for additive
manufacturing,” J Clean Prod, vol. 278, p. 123183, Jan. 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123183.

[42] V. Mohanavel, K. S. Ashraff Ali, K. Ranganathan, J. Allen Jeffrey, M. M. Ravikumar, and S.

Rajkumar, “The roles and applications of additive manufacturing in the aerospace and
automobile sector,” Mater Today Proc, vol. 47, pp. 405–409, 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.matpr.2021.04.596.

[43] K. Nyamuchiwa, R. Palad, J. Panlican, Y. Tian, and C. Aranas, “Recent Progress in Hybrid
Additive Manufacturing of Metallic Materials,” Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 14, p. 8383, Jul.
2023, doi: 10.3390/app13148383.

[44] S. Singh and S. Ramakrishna, “Biomedical applications of additive manufacturing: Present and
future,” Curr Opin Biomed Eng, vol. 2, pp. 105–115, Jun. 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.cobme.2017.05.006.

[45] A. Jandyal, I. Chaturvedi, I. Wazir, A. Raina, and M. I. Ul Haq, “3D printing – A review of
processes, materials and applications in industry 4.0,” Sustainable Operations and Computers,
vol. 3, pp. 33–42, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.susoc.2021.09.004.

[46] Z.-X. Low, Y. T. Chua, B. M. Ray, D. Mattia, I. S. Metcalfe, and D. A. Patterson, “Perspective on
3D printing of separation membranes and comparison to related unconventional fabrication
techniques,” J Memb Sci, vol. 523, pp. 596–613, Feb. 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.memsci.2016.10.006.

[47] J. Yuan, C. Chen, D. Yao, and G. Chen, “3D Printing of Oil Paintings Based on Material Jetting
and Its Reduction of Staircase Effect,” Polymers (Basel), vol. 12, no. 11, p. 2536, Oct. 2020, doi:
10.3390/polym12112536.

Page 19 of 21
[48] J. H. Martin, B. D. Yahata, J. M. Hundley, J. A. Mayer, T. A. Schaedler, and T. M. Pollock, “3D
printing of high-strength aluminium alloys,” Nature, vol. 549, no. 7672, pp. 365–369, Sep.
2017, doi: 10.1038/nature23894.

[49] L. Hitzler et al., “Additive Manufacturing of Cobalt-Based Dental Alloys: Analysis of

Microstructure and Physicomechanical Properties,” Advances in Materials Science and
Engineering, vol. 2018, pp. 1–12, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1155/2018/8213023.

[50] L. E. Murr, “Frontiers of 3D Printing/Additive Manufacturing: from Human Organs to Aircraft

Fabrication†,” J Mater Sci Technol, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 987–995, Oct. 2016, doi:
10.1016/j.jmst.2016.08.011.

[51] T. DebRoy et al., “Additive manufacturing of metallic components – Process, structure and
properties,” Prog Mater Sci, vol. 92, pp. 112–224, Mar. 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.10.001.

[52] F. Trevisan et al., “Additive manufacturing of titanium alloys in the biomedical field: processes,
properties and applications,” J Appl Biomater Funct Mater, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 57–67, Apr.
2018, doi: 10.5301/jabfm.5000371.

[53] E. Uhlmann, R. Kersting, T. B. Klein, M. F. Cruz, and A. V. Borille, “Additive Manufacturing of

Titanium Alloy for Aircraft Components,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 35, pp. 55–60, 2015, doi:
10.1016/j.procir.2015.08.061.

[54] W. Hao, Y. Liu, H. Zhou, H. Chen, and D. Fang, “Preparation and characterization of 3D printed
continuous carbon fiber reinforced thermosetting composites,” Polym Test, vol. 65, pp. 29–34,
Feb. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.11.004.

[55] T. Sathishkumar, S. Satheeshkumar, and J. Naveen, “Glass fiber-reinforced polymer composites

– a review,” Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, vol. 33, no. 13, pp. 1258–1275, Jul.
2014, doi: 10.1177/0731684414530790.

[56] Z. Liu et al., “Modification of Glass Fiber Surface and Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Composites Challenges and Opportunities: From Organic Chemistry Perspective,” Curr Org
Chem, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 991–1010, Jun. 2015, doi: 10.2174/138527281911150610100914.

[57] Y. Tian et al., “A Review of 3D Printing in Dentistry: Technologies, Affecting Factors, and
Applications,” Scanning, vol. 2021, pp. 1–19, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1155/2021/9950131.

[58] T. Duda and L. V. Raghavan, “3D Metal Printing Technology,” in IFAC-Papers Online, Elsevier
B.V., 2016, pp. 103–110. doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.11.111.

[59] V. Tambrallimath and R. Keshavamurthy, “Glimpses of 3D Printing in the 21st Century,” 2023,
pp. 1–8. doi: 10.4018/978-1-6684-6009-2.ch001.

[60] S. Kumar, “Advantage and Disadvantage,” 2023, pp. 1–60. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-34563-0_1.

[61] B. Pavan Kalyan and L. Kumar, “3D Printing: Applications in Tissue Engineering, Medical
Devices, and Drug Delivery,” AAPS PharmSciTech, vol. 23, no. 4, p. 92, May 2022, doi:
10.1208/s12249-022-02242-8.

[62] S. Kholgh Eshkalak, E. Rezvani Ghomi, Y. Dai, D. Choudhury, and S. Ramakrishna, “The role of
three-dimensional printing in healthcare and medicine,” Mater Des, vol. 194, p. 108940, Sep.
2020, doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108940.

Page 20 of 21
[63] J.-Y. Park, H.-Y. Kim, J.-H. Kim, J.-H. Kim, and W.-C. Kim, “Comparison of prosthetic models
produced by traditional and additive manufacturing methods,” J Adv Prosthodont, vol. 7, no.
4, p. 294, 2015, doi: 10.4047/jap.2015.7.4.294.

[64] R. Sheng, “3-D printing in healthcare,” in 3D Printing, Elsevier, 2022, pp. 111–120. doi:
10.1016/B978-0-323-99463-7.00013-X.

[65] H. Nazha and S. Szabolcs, “An Overview about Using the 3D Printing Technology,”
International Research Journal of Multidisciplinary Scope, vol. 03, no. 01, pp. 01–03, 2022,
doi: 10.47857/irjms.2022.v03i01.064.

[66] S. K. Sinha, “Additive manufacturing (AM) of medical devices and scaffolds for tissue
engineering based on 3D and 4D printing,” in 3D and 4D Printing of Polymer Nanocomposite
Materials, Elsevier, 2020, pp. 119–160. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-816805-9.00005-3.

[67] H. N. Chia and B. M. Wu, “Recent advances in 3D printing of biomaterials,” J Biol Eng, vol. 9,
no. 1, p. 4, Dec. 2015, doi: 10.1186/s13036-015-0001-4.

[68] J. R. Mark Co and A. B. Culaba, “3D Printing: Challenges and Opportunities of an Emerging
Disruptive Technology,” in 2019 IEEE 11th International Conference on Humanoid,
Nanotechnology, Information Technology, Communication and Control, Environment, and
Management ( HNICEM ), IEEE, Nov. 2019, pp. 1–6. doi:
10.1109/HNICEM48295.2019.9073427.

[69] S. Beretta and S. Romano, “A comparison of fatigue strength sensitivity to defects for
materials manufactured by AM or traditional processes,” Int J Fatigue, vol. 94, pp. 178–191,
Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.06.020.

[70] T. Pereira, J. V Kennedy, and J. Potgieter, “A comparison of traditional manufacturing vs

additive manufacturing, the best method for the job,” Procedia Manuf, vol. 30, pp. 11–18,
2019, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.003.

[71] S. Wilson, R. Thomas, N. Mary, E. T. Bosco, and A. Gopinath, “Development and fabrication of
fused deposition modelling 3D printer,” IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng, vol. 1132, no. 1, p.
012019, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/1132/1/012019.

[72] C. R. Garcia, R. C. Rumpf, H. H. Tsang, and J. H. Barton, “Effects of extreme surface roughness
on 3D printed horn antenna,” Electron Lett, vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 734–736, Jun. 2013, doi:
10.1049/el.2013.1528.

Page 21 of 21