Merck KGaA has partnered with German tech company AMCM to carry out clinical testing on tablets manufactured using 3D printing.
The collaboration – which could be a “massive move towards digitalization of the industry,” according to Merck’s chief strategy officer Isabel de Paoli – will focus initially on formulation development and production of 3D printed tablets for clinical trials.
Merck and AMCM – part of the metal and polymer 3D printing specialist EOS group – are working on the development of a prototype tablet printer that they hope will be ready for testing later this year.
3D printing has already reached the commercial stage in pharma, after Aprecia Pharmaceuticals claimed FDA approval for its epilepsy therapy Spritam (levetiracetam) in 2015.
Scott Drikakis, healthcare segment leader – Americas, Stratasys, explores how 3D printing could enable medical device manufacturers to overcome current limitations, improve clinical validation, and change the game of medical device testing.
The use of 3D printing in healthcare is not a new phenomenon. Those who keenly pay attention to technology developments within the sector will be unsurprised to hear of its use. In recent years, Stratasys has worked with customers across the world to improve patient care and communication, accelerate clinical validation and increase innovation. In Europe, hospitals such as CHU Bordeaux and Guy’s and St Thomas’ have utilized the very latest in advanced, multi-material 3D printing to create patient-specific 3D medical models to help plan complex procedures. Equally, customers such as Nidek Technologies have been able to dramatically accelerate clinical trials when incorporating 3D printing into the device testing process.
Despite these incredible advances, 3D printing has had its limitations in terms of organ realism and biomechanical functionality and, to date, has not offered a testing method which covers all problem areas. This means that many medical device manufacturers are still also reliant on traditional testing methods. These predominantly involve the use of human cadavers, animals or virtual modeling. However, as with the current 3D printing solutions available, each of these methods comes with their own distinct limitations. These can range from ethical concerns to lengthy and costly development processes. As a result, medical institutions are continuing to push for technological advancements to overcome such issues. To help make this a realization, it is essential to create a solution that can directly target the specific drawbacks that each of the traditional methods of testing have, as well as overcome the current limitations of 3D printing itself. The recently launched J750 Digital Anatomy 3D printer claims to address all of these issues. Through using advanced new materials and software, this printer can replicate the actual feel, responsiveness and biomechanics of human anatomy.
Additive manufacturing, or 3D printing, has been around in one shape or form for a while. The process essentially entails building a three-dimensional object from computer-aided design (CAD) to add material layer by layer until a final product is complete. The use cases for 3D printing cover most anything you can imagine. In fact, recently, while on a weekend ski trip with friends, my buddy John was riding the chairlift with two women from France who worked for a company that specialized in 3D printing human organs. However, these 3D printed organs were not meant to be used for transplants. Instead, these 3D printed organs were used as replicas of human organs to practice complex surgeries.
This conversation got me thinking about the pros and cons of 3D printing, and how as supply chain professionals, it fits into our everyday lives. In the grand scheme of things, 3D printing’s effect on the supply chain can be summarized as the following: warehouses no longer need to keep as many parts in stock. The rationale is that the parts can simply be printed on an as-needed basis. Along these lines of thinking, this would seem to be especially true for the replacement parts industry. However, does this actually make sense and is it a soon-to-be reality?
“3D printing will be a game-changer for the MRO industry worldwide.”
Pratt & Whitney is set to introduce a 3D printed aero-engine component into its maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) operations by mid-2020 after a successful collaboration with ST Engineering.
The two companies came together to leverage 3D printing technology to facilitate faster and more flexible repair solutions, with contributions also coming from Pratt & Whitney’s repair specialist Component Aerospace Singapore.
Component Aerospace Singapore provides engine part repair for combustion chambers, fuel systems and manifolds; ST Engineering boasts ‘production-level 3D capabilities’ and experience applying 3D printing in land transport systems; and Pratt & Whitney is a specialist in design and engineering.
The U.S. Army is working towards developing its supply chain to support the integration of additive manufacturing. That’s according to Gen. Gus Perna, the head of Army Materiel Command, speaking at a press event in Washington on February 4, 2020.
Having been experimenting and trialing the technology in recent times, Perna states that it is now pertinent for the U.S. Army to develop a means for effectively deploying and utilizing 3D printing across the service, particularly within arsenals, depots, and plants.
To this end, an advanced manufacturing policy was approved by Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy in October 2019, which focused specifically on “Enabling Readiness and Modernization Through Advanced Manufacturing”. The policy seeks to push the adoption of 3D printing forward in the force in order to manufacture parts quickly. Reaffirming its commitment to advanced manufacturing and 3D printing, Perna states that the next step for the U.S. Army is to develop a process for using the capabilities of the technology across the force.
Online e-procurement portal for marine spares and equipment ShipParts.com is taking part in a project to investigate how additive manufacturing, more commonly known as 3D printing, could revolutionize the way in which spare parts are procured and delivered.
ShipParts.com has been operating for some five years, and has built up a client base of more than 1,800+ buyers and around 17,000+ sellers actively trading on the platform. Sellers are from all corners of the globe, including European, American, Chinese, Japanese and Korean manufacturers and partners.
The company says that digitalizing procurement processes can cut order processing time for spare parts by 80%, a key consideration for the marine industry, where reducing off-hire time for ships is critical.
Online e-procurement portal for marine spares and equipment ShipParts.com is taking part in a project to investigate how additive manufacturing, more commonly known as 3D printing, could revolutionize the way in which spare parts are procured and delivered.
ShipParts.com has been operating for some five years, and has built up a client base of more than 1,800+ buyers and around 17,000+ sellers actively trading on the platform. Sellers are from all corners of the globe, including European, American, Chinese, Japanese and Korean manufacturers and partners.
Using additive manufacturing to make parts big and small could help utilities save time and money.
It’s a question that manufacturers face constantly: What’s the best way to produce the most items with the least amount of money, while maintaining the highest possible quality?
Over the past few decades, 3D printing has presented a potential solution to that problem, but only recently has the technology seen widespread development. Also called additive manufacturing, 3D printing has so far been most useful for companies developing and testing new products, allowing them to make relatively low-cost prototypes.
Seeing the potential benefits, organizations around the globe are investing more in the technology. A study from Sculpteo found that in 2018, companies increased their investments in 3D printing by 70 percent, up from just 47 percent in 2017.
