Table 1.
Most common additive manufacturing methods, used material, spatial resolution, advantages, and drawbacks of each
| Method | Typical materials | Resolution | Advantages | Drawbacks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stereolithography (SLA) | Resins with photo-active monomers acrylates – epoxides (Ligon et al., 2017) - DC 100 (high accuracy) - DC 500 - DL 350/360 (high flexibility) - AB 001 - GM 08 (high flexibility) - DM 210 - DM 220 | 10 μm (Ngo et al., 2018) | Fine spatial resolution - high quality (Ngo et al., 2018) - good surface quality - good precision (Ligon et al., 2017) | Supports limited materials - slow printing - expensive (Ngo et al., 2018) - poor biocompatibility - limited mechanical properties (Ligon et al., 2017) |
| Digital light processing (DLP) (Ligon et al., 2017) | Acrylates - epoxides - plas range (High resolution and chemically resistant) - superCAST - superWAX | 25–100 μm | High printing accuracy - low cost - shorter build time than SLA - less affected by oxygen inhibition compared to SLA - better surface quality - low initial vat volume is needed | Limited mechanical properties |
| Continuous liquid interphase printing (CLIP) (Ligon et al., 2017) | Acrylates - rigid polyurethane (RPU) - flexible polyurethane (EPU) (impact resistant) - elastomeric polyurethane - cyanate ester (CE) - prototyping (PR) - | 75 μm | Higher build speed than DLP | Low viscosity resin is needed |
| Two/multi-photon polymerization (TPP/MPP) (Ligon et al., 2017) | Acrylates | 100 nm - 5 μm | High spatial resolution | Low build speed - limited material |
| Powder-bed based methods (selective laser sintering (SLS) -selective laser melting (SLM)) | Compact fine powder metals - alloys and limited polymers (Ngo et al., 2018) - PA12 – PEEK (Ligon et al., 2017) titanium (biocompatible) - stainless steel - aluminum - cobalt/chrome – nickel-based alloys | 50–250 μm (Ligon et al., 2017) | Fine resolution - high quality - durable - large surface area, good for scaffolds of tissue engineering - good mechanical properties (SLM) - less anisotropy (Ligon et al., 2017) | Slow printing - expensive - porosity - lower mechanical properties due to the porous structure (SLS) - high power supply - high printing temp - rough surface - poor reusability of unsintered powder (Ligon et al., 2017) |
| Fused deposition modeling (FDM) | Continuous filament of thermoplastic polymers - continuous fiber-reinforced polymers (Ngo et al., 2018) – PLA (Ligon et al., 2017) - ABS - ASA - Nylon 12 - PC - PPSF/PPSU - PEI or ULTEM (Biocompatible) - PLA – TPU | 50–200 μm (Ngo et al., 2018) | Low cost - high speed – simplicity (Ngo et al., 2018) | Weak mechanical properties - limited material (thermoplastics) – layer-by-layer finish (Ngo et al., 2018) - rough surface - high temperature during the extrusion process (incompatible for cells) (Ligon et al., 2017) |
| 3D dispensing (Ligon et al., 2017) | Thermoplastics - photoresins - composites - hydrogels - biomaterials | 100 μm - 1cm | Wide range of materials | Rough surface - narrow viscosity process window |
| 3D printing (Binder jetting) (Ligon et al., 2017) | Stretch - PLA - ceramics | 100 μm | Fast - allow multi-material AM | Rough surface - limited strength of parts |
| Inkjet printing (Ngo et al., 2018) | A concentrated dispersion of particles in a liquid (Ink or paste) | 5–200 μm | Quick printing | Weak adhesion between layers |
| PolyJet (Ligon et al., 2017) | Acrylates - VeroWhitePlus - digital ABS - FullCure RGD 720 - Rigur RGD 450 - biocompatible material | 25 μm | Fast - allow multimaterial AM | Low viscosity ink is needed |
| Direct energy deposition (DED) (Ngo et al., 2018) | Metals and alloys in the form of powder or wire ceramics and polymers | 250 μm | Reduced manufacturing time and cost - good mechanical properties - accurate composition control - good for repair and retrofitting | Low accuracy - low surface quality - dense support structure is needed - limitation in printing complex shapes |