Welcome to today’s 

FDA/CDRH Webinar

Thank you for your patience while we register all of today’s participants.

If you have not connected to the audio portion of the webinar, 

please do so now:

U.S. Callers Dial: 800-369-2040 

International Callers Dial: 1-773-756-4813

Passcode: 1397061

Conference number: PWXW6260245
Technical Considerations for Additive Manufactured 

Medical Devices

Additive Manufacturing Working Group

Center for Devices and Radiological Health

January 10, 2018
3 

Disclaimer 

The mention of commercial products, their sources, or their use in connection with materials reported 

herein is not to be construed as either an actual or implied endorsement of such products by the 

Department of Health and Human Services. 
4 

Presenters 

• Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories

–Matthew Di Prima

–James Coburn

• Office of Compliance

–Eric Horowitz

• Office of Device Evaluation

–David Hwang

–Joel Anderson

• Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health 

–Nooshin Kiarashi
5 

Guidance Documents

• Represent FDA's current thinking on a topic

• Do not create or confer any rights for or on any person 

• Do not bind FDA or the public

• Allow you to use alternative approaches if the approach satisfies 

the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
6 

This Guidance

• 294 comments from 29 commenters

• Multiple stakeholder interactions

– Scientific and industry meetings

– Standards Committees

Released in Draft 

(May 10, 2016)

Received & Addressed 

Comments 

Final Guidance 

(Dec 5, 2017)

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
7 

Significant Changes

• Added a brief section (V.B.4) on cybersecurity and personally identifiable 

information (PPI) 

– Points to existing guidance 

–Does not present new guidance

• Updated Labeling (VII) 

–Now consistent with other guidance documents 

– Clarified to apply only to patient matched devices

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
8 

Significant Changes

• Replaced most instances of “cleaning” with “removing manufacturing material 

residue” in Cleaning and Sterilization (VI.E) 

–Harmonize with the regulatory language in CFR 820.3

–Does not refer to removing biological soil

–Does not reflect a change in technical considerations

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
9 

Patient matching considerations

• Not custom devices

– See §V.E of Custom Device Exemption Guidance

• Treated as a specified design envelope

– Requires validation

– Show Substantial Equivalence of worst case(s)

• Addresses patient matching in conjunction with AM

–Does not address all concerns with patient matched devices

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
10

Guidance Objectives

• Broadly address considerations for AM medical devices

–Identify important aspects of the technologies and workflows

–Provide a framework for evaluating processes using AM

• Not all considerations apply to every AM technology, material, or device 

Sponsors should apply individual considerations 

based on their specific situation

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
11

Guidance Objectives

• Supplement device specific guidance or testing

– Identify AM-specific concerns

– Aid in determining a worst case conditions

• Be a resource for

– The device portion of combination products 

– Stakeholders who are new to medical device manufacture or AM of medical devices

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
12

In Scope for this Guidance

• Design and Manufacturing Considerations

– Provides technical considerations that should be addressed as part of QS requirements 

–QS requirements determined by existing regulatory classification/regulations

• Device Testing Considerations 

–Describes what AM specific information should be included in a premarket submission

– Type of premarket submission is determined by regulatory classification

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
13

Out of Scope for this Guidance

• Regulatory policy

–Point of care/hospital printing

–Device specific regulations

• Direct printing of cells/tissues

• Specific device/policy questions should be addressed through the presubmission process: 

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM311176.pdf

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
14

Additive Manufacturing

Process Simplified Flowchart

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
15

A Hypothetical Example Device 

• Patient-matched cranial repair device

–Fit to patient anatomical imaging

–Uses patient-specific surgical guides

–Manufactured using

• Powder bed fusion process

• Ti-6Al-4V 

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
16

DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING CONSIDERATIONS
17

Device Design

–Additive manufacturing technologies have different design considerations

–Patient matching is easier, accomplished through many methods

• Technical Consideration

–Device description includes

• Description of additive manufacturing technology 

• Process flowchart 

–For patient matching

• Describe patient-matched features

• Provide design envelope

Cranial device example:

• Brief description of the powder bed fusion 

technology & process flowchart

• Patient-matching design envelope

• Curve of plate to match skull contours 

of the opposite side 

• Edges of plate to match cranial defect

• Minimum allowable thickness = 2 mm

• Sharpest corner = 3 mm radius

• Maximum planar area = 25 mm2

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
18

Software Workflow

– Software workflow is critical to Additive Manufacturing device 

design and production

– File conversions and translation from digital to printable forms

– Workflows often includes a human-in-the-loop

• Technical Consideration

– Analyze workflow for effects on the Additive Manufacturing 

processes

• Clearly describe analysis

–How do any variations affect the final product 

Cranial device example:

• Patient imaging using standard 

protocol 

• Segmentation of patient 

anatomy from the imaging by 

trained users

• Process validated to known 

image set

• Resolution

• Printer: 100μm in powder 

bed plane

• Printer: 50μm layer 

thickness

• Image resolution = 250 μm3

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
19

Material Controls

– Final material is produced in situ

–Quality and consistency of starting materials 

are very important

– Each technology, process, and even intended 

use may have different material requirements 

– Material reuse can affect the final part

• Technical Consideration

– Ensure starting material and mixture of re-used material 

(if applicable) will yield the appropriate physical and 

chemical properties

Cranial device example:

• Brief description of starting 

material requirements

• meets ASTM F2924 chemistry 

requirements

• powder size range from 10–

40 μm

• Description and validation of 

powder reuse protocol

• Powder is re-used a 

maximum 

of 5 times

• Validation testing shows 5x 

re-used powder is similar to 

virgin, not a worst case test 

condition

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
20

Post-Processing

–Post-processing steps can affect

• Final device performance 

• Material properties

 

• Technical Consideration 

–Describe any post-processing steps

–Identify any detrimental effects on final device 

performance 

–Describe mitigations

Cranial device example:

• Post-Processing Steps:

• Removal from powder bed

• Cut from build plate

• Annealed

• CO2 blasted

• Final machining

• Final cleaning

• Gamma sterilized

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
21

Process Validation & Acceptance

–Device quality affected by numerous parameters 

–Generally less experience in creating controlled Additive 

Manufacturing processes compared to traditional techniques. 

• Technical Consideration

– Evaluate how each step of the Additive Manufacturing process 

workflow affects the following steps. 

– Additive Manufacturing procedures may differ from other 

manufacturing techniques in 

• Process monitoring

• Revalidation triggers

• Acceptance testing criteria

Cranial device example:

• Extreme cranial curvature -> 

altered placement angle

• Validate a range of 

placement angles for 

design envelope

• Individual cranial device size 

can alter thermal profile of 

build

• Ensure that coupons are 

validated for worst case

• Use an infrared camera to 

monitor bed temperature 

profile

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
22

DEVICE TESTING CONSIDERATIONS
23

Performance Testing

– Technology-specific concerns affecting performance of 

final finished device including

• Orientation

• Build location

• Other parameters

• Technical Consideration

– Part orientation and location should factor into worst 

case consideration for testing

– Can leverage validation testing of system using 

representative coupons

Cranial device example:

• Validation of build space showed

• Corners of build space had 

significantly poorer mechanical 

performance than rest of build space

• Build orientation did not have a 

significant effect of mechanical 

performance

• Worst case selection consideration

• No corners used, remaining space 

considered uniform

• All devices printed same orientation, 

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
24

Material Characterization

– Additive Manufacturing Technologies alter the starting material 

to create the final material during build

–Need to understand if the Additive Manufacturing process 

creates any material risks

• Technical Considerations

– Investigate the effect the printing process has on your material

– Specifics vary based on the material and Additive 

Manufacturing technology

– Additional considerations for resorbable or other active 

materials

Cranial device example:

• Material Characterization

• Virgin powder, 5x 

reused powder, and 

final part chemistry 

conform to ASTM 

F2924 

• Final part conforms to 

mechanical and 

microstructural 

requirements of ASTM 

F2924 

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
25

Removing Manufacturing Residue, 

 Device Cleaning and Sterilization

– Additive Manufacturing generally requires residue and 

support removal steps 

– Complex geometries can make residue removal, cleaning, 

& sterilization a challenge

• Technical consideration 

–Describe your manufacturing residue removal process 

and validate

– Should include worst case geometries (porosity/blind 

holes)

– Placement of cleaning and sterilization test samples 

should be carefully considered

Cranial device example:

• Manufacturing removal process

• Removed from powder bed

• Blasted with CO2 

• Final Machining

• Validation/worst case

• Solid part with no porosity/blind 

holes and machined to final size.

• Little risk of residual powder on 

final finished part

• Cleaning and Sterilization

• Validated cleaning cycle similar to 

non-AM devices with minimally 

complex or internal geometries

• Gamma irradiated

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
26

Biocompatibility 

–Ensure that Additive Manufacturing does not 

adversely affect biocompatibility

• Technical Consideration 

–ISO 10993 should be sufficient 

–Possible additional information/testing if

• Known toxic substances (e.g. some photoinitiators) 

• Unknown long term effects 

–New FDA Guidance on Biocompatibility testing 

addresses use of ISO 10993

Cranial device example:

• Material has a long history 

in similar clinical 

applications

• Perform cytotoxicity 

testing for new cell types 

in this indication for use

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
27

ADDITIONAL LABELING CONSIDERATIONS
28

Additional Labeling Considerations

– Patient matched devices are not always 

easily identified by clinician

• Technical Consideration

– Patient matched device should be labeled with

• patient identifier

• anatomical location (or identifier)

• design iteration used to produce the device

• Note: These are safety considerations and do not 

intersect with or alter UDI requirements

Cranial device example:

• Each printed device 

includes a tag with

• Patient identifier

• Anatomy identifier

• Design designation

www.fda.gov/3dprinting
Questions? 

Division of Industry and Consumer Education: DICE@fda.hhs.gov

FDA Additive Manufacturing AdditiveManufacturing@fda.hhs.gov 

Slide Presentation, Transcript and Webinar 

Recording will be available at:

http://www.fda.gov/training/cdrhlearn

Under the Heading: Specialty Technical Topics; 

subheading: Custom Devices