## 5 Conclusions  
An integrative experimental approach was devised to combine support structure design optimization with an optimal support removal procedure for L-PBF-manufactured filigree structures. Based on the area that was exposed to the laser beam, four support structure designs (rectangular, filled circle, line, and cross) were identified in the first step, and in the subsequent step, two of the most efficient designs were selected for further investigations. Skipping of the layers from laser exposure was attempted in order to compensate for some of the manufacturing time used for fabricating the supports. It was observed that the production time can be reduced without sacrificing the stability provided by support structures by skipping the laser exposure within some of the deposited powder layers. For the removal of optimized support structure designs, SB and GB were attempted due to their wide use in industrial applications. ECP, which was previously used for enhancing the surface properties of the manufactured components, was also attempted as a new strategy for support removal. A modified line support structure design consisting of two straight lines with an included angle of 145\({}^{\circ}\) proved to be an optimal design, requiring a shorter manufacturing time, lower material consumption, and a higher breaking load requirement. This design also allowed the skipping of up to eight layers. ECP was identified as an efficient strategy for the complete removal of the line support within fifteen minutes. The three support removal strategies, SB, GB, and ECP, were able to significantly reduce the surface roughness in comparison with the as-built state. By using ECP, the arithmetic mean of the surface roughness values Sa was reduced by up to 0.25 \(\upmu\)m. Further possibilities regarding the maximum number of skipped layers are yet to be explored for an optimal support structure design that could further reduce the manufacturing time. A future investigation in this approach will look into the potential of extending layer skipping during the fabrication of real filigree structures rather than the supporting structures.  
The following are available online at [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app11199176/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app11199176/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app11199176/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app11199176/s1)), Figure S1. Schematic representations with the approximate dimensions for the two different (a) and (b) support structure designs used in reference with the line support; (c) dimensions of the cross support with the front (left) and top (right) views.  
Conceptualization, M.G., N.N. and P.L.; methodology, M.G., U.S. and P.L.; software, M.G.; validation, U.N., P.L. and N.N.; formal analysis, N.N.; investigation, M.G. and U.S.; resources, P.L and U.N.; data curation, N.N.; writing--original draft preparation, M.G. and N.N.; writing--review and editing, N.N. and U.N; visualization, M.G.; supervision, P.L. and N.N.; project administration, U.N.; funding acquisition, U.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) funded this research within the framework of SME-innovative: medical engineering, Aortic Gen-i-Stent grant number 13 GW0391B.  
All the relevant data are included within the manuscript. The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Some of the data are not publicly available due to the confidentiality agreement between the industry partner and the university.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.