See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/351073699
Opportunities and Challenges of Selective Laser Sintering 3D Printing in
Personalized Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Article in American Pharmaceutical Review · April 2021
CITATIONS READS
4 251
5 authors, including:
Naseem Charoo Mansoor Khan
Succor Pharma Solutions Texas A&M University - College Station, Rangel College of Pharmacy
62 PUBLICATIONS 1,622 CITATIONS 428 PUBLICATIONS 15,844 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Ziyaur Rahman
Texas A&M University
149 PUBLICATIONS 4,027 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Naseem Charoo on 23 April 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Search American Pharmaceutical Review
Home Bioprocessing Chromatography Drug Delivery Excipients Formulation Development Instrumentation Microbiology Spectroscopy
Articles News Blog Events Videos Featured Products Company Pro les QC Corner
Articles Article Archives Opportunities and Challenges of Selective Laser Sintering 3D Printing in Personalized Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Opportunities and Challenges of Selective Laser
Sintering 3D Printing in Personalized Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing
Friday, April 2, 2021 Naseem A. Charoo
Cyrus Funkhouser
College of Engineering
Mathew A. Kuttolamadom
Texas A&M Health Science Center
Mansoor Khan, Ph.D.
Ziyaur Rahman
Texas A&M Health Science Center
Tweet Share 0 Share Email Follow APR
Keep up with our latest articles, news and events. Plus,
get special offers and more delivered to your inbox.
Introduction
Your Email Address
Three-dimensional printing (3DP) is a path breaking technology, which will undoubtedly open a new era in
pharmaceutical manufacturing science. The International Standard Organization (ISO) defines 3DP as: “Fabrication of
objects through the deposition of a material using a print head, nozzle, or another printer technology.”1 It is based on
Connect with Us
additive manufacturing technology in which three-dimensional objects are created by joining materials layer by layer
from a digital computer aided design file. 3DP offers flexibility, versatility and agility for pharmaceutical
manufacturing. Possibly, fewer manufacturing steps and lesser number of excipients are required than conventional
manufacturing processes.2
The use of 3D printing in the medical device industry has increased enormously and the number of medical devices
manufactured using 3DP has exploded. More than 85 3DP medical devices, including hearing aids, hip cups, knee
trays, dental crowns, etc. have been approved by the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA).3 In comparison, the
pharmaceutical industry has been slow in embracing the technology primarily due to technical and regulatory
challenges. So far, only one printed dosage form, Spritam® which contains levetricetam, has been approved by the
FDA.4 The dosage form is highly porous causing it to disperse in the mouth in a matter of seconds even without
consuming water. This attribute makes it a very attractive option for patients who have trouble with chewing or
swallowing. Further, the lag time for onset of action is reduced due to fast disintegration and absorption of the drug
into systemic circulation through the oral mucosa.4,5
Subscribe to our e-Newsletters
Stay up to date with the latest news, articles, and events. Plus, get special offers
Sign up now!
from American Pharmaceutical Review – all delivered right to your inbox!
The 3D printing methods most relevant to pharmaceutical manufacturing include Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM),
Binder Jetting (BJ), Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) and Stereolithography (SLA). The salient features of these
technologies are enumerated in Table 1. Briefly, the manufacturing process comprises of designing a digital model of
the desired 3D product. The digital design is converted to a readable format, stereolithography (STL) file. The 3D
printing software, typically a slicer, converts the STL file into a series of thin layers with print instructions. The printer
head or laser moves during the printing process as dosage form (printlets) is built in successive layers on a built
platform. Post processing steps may be required depending on the technology employed.2
Selective Laser Sintering
SLS embodies one of the latest and advanced technologies for manufacturing printlets. The essential components of a
SLS system are a spreading platform, powder bed, and a laser system (laser and a scanner). After the powder is evenly
spread over the building platform, the laser draws specific scanning patterns on the powder surface, which are
predesigned depending on the characteristics of the finished product. The powder is sintered by softening or melting
of the thermoplastic polymer. Subsequently, the powder bed moves down by a height of one-layer thickness while the
reservoir bed moves up to deposit a new powder layer onto the previously sintered layer followed by laser sintering.
The process of powder layering and sintering are repeated till desired printlets are formed (Figure 1).6
SLS has many advantages over other additive manufacturing methods. For example, no solvent is used. Therefore, it is
suitable for drug candidates which are sensitive to aqueous and organic solvents. SLS does not require post processing
treatments such as drying, UV curing, etc., meaning that printlets can be immediately dispensed and consumed. In
comparison to other processes, SLS does not require a filament form of raw material, polymerizable monomer, or a
liquid binder. However, SLS requires formulation components to be thermoplastic and thermally stable. Further, the
polymers should be biocompatible, biodegradable and GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) listed.6 Additionally, the
mixture needs to have laser-absorbing components to enhance the laser absorptivity of the powder mixture (e.g.
Candurin® gold sheen [silicon dioxide coated with ferric oxide]). Colouring agents approved by the FDA can also be
used as laser absorbing agents in low concentration (≤3%).
The critical process parameters in SLS include laser power, bed temperature, layer thickness, and powder properties
such as particle size, particle size distribution, shape, and density. These parameters play crucial roles in dimensional
accuracy, quality of the surface/subsurface, mechanical properties, and other critical quality attributes (CQAs) of
printlets.2,6 The powder bed is preheated to reduce the laser energy required for sintering. Internal stresses and
thermal deformations can be remarkably reduced when thermal gradients are minimized (often in proportion to the
laser energy density supplied), as the printlet undergoes less cooling between layers than if the printing was done at
room temperature. The net powder bed temperature is the outcome of interaction between laser beam properties,
scanning pattern and thermal properties of powders. Laser energy required for sintering is determined by the type of
the material and thickness of the powder layer. In SLS studies done to date for manufacturing pharmaceutical printlets,
a Sintratec Kit printer has been used, which has a constant laser power of 2.3W.7-12 Therefore, the only parameters
that have been changed to adjust the laser energy are the scan speed and hatch distance. Having a lower scanning
speed increases the contact time between the powder bed and the laser beam, which generates a high laser energy
density ensuring a high degree of sintering/melting that generally results in denser printlets. Conversely, porous
printlets would be formed at high laser scanning speed. High scanning speed results in less energy transmission to the
powder, culminating in less powder sintering. Hatch distance, which is the distance between two consecutive
scanning path vectors, should be optimized vis-a-vis laser beam diameter and energy density. Large hatch distances
may result in incomplete sintering and consequently mechanically weak structures. On the other hand, too small hatch
distances may induce thermal deformation.2,6,10 Though the thermal energy absorption can vary based on powder
composition, the volumetric energy density can be determined by:
Where, ED is the energy density, PL is the
laser power, dL is the laser diameter, hS is the
hatch distance, and vs is the beam speed, or
the laser scanning speed.13,14
The particle size and thickness of the
effective powder layer significantly
influences the laser sintering process. The
large difference between particle sizes of
formulation components can induce
segregation. The powder must demonstrate good flowability for uniform spreading on the platform. High packing
density of the layer is desired for better printlet density. The particle sizes that provide good flowability and sintering
for SLS is typically in the 50-100 µm range. Layer thickness (slice thickness) typically used in SLS varies from 50 to 500
µm, and significantly influence printing resolution, surface roughness, etc.10 Having a smaller powder layer leads to
better layer fusion, as there is less material in thin layers that must be sintered per layer by the laser. Better layer fusion
due to having thinner layers also leads to higher mechanical strength and lower porosity.
Challenges of SLS Technology
Various challenges, both technical and regulatory, prevent their widespread application in pharmaceutical
manufacturing. Formulation components endure preheating and localized heating phases during the sintering
process which may accelerate the degradation of formulation components including drug candidates. Therefore,
thorough evaluation of thermal stability behavior during the SLS process is obviously necessary to understand the
degradation mechanisms. To reduce the risk to CQAs, thermolabile drugs would require processing at low temperature
and lower laser power or alternatively faster scanning speed can be used. Low temperature melting thermoplastic
polymers such as polycaprolactone is preferred for such applications.6,10 The recycling of unbound powder which has
been exposed to the processing conditions remains a major challenge. The recycled powder may undergo changes in
CQAs and therefore, unbound/uncured material may not be suitable for recycling suggesting significant process
losses.2 Mechanical properties of 3D printed tablets can be manipulated by formulation and process variables.
Therefore, these characteristics would entail a great deal of material and process-related research for various dosage
forms. Another challenge impeding the acceptance of this technology is the lack of cGMP compliant 3D printers.
Therefore, compliance to CFR 21 part 211 requirements could act as a stumbling block. Further, there is no regulatory
guidance available for drug products manufactured by 3D printing. However, existing regulatory framework can be
utilized for submitting new drug applications [(NDA (505(b)(1) or 505(b)(2))] or abbreviated new drug applications
(ANDA(505(j))].2
Finally, the current 3D printing technology is a slow process and cannot match the mass production output of
conventional rotary tablet presses or capsule filling machines. Current 3D printers can process only a few hundred
dosage forms per hour, while in comparison a 77 station tablet press can produce 831,000 tablets per hour.15 However,
it is the manufacturing of personalized medicine where 3D printed dosage forms hold immense potential.
Applications in Fabricating Personalized Medicine
3DP technology has the potential to digitize the compounding of pharmaceuticals and print personalized medicines
for patients on demand and therefore complete the missing cog in the telemedicine wheel. The current compounding
practices used in pharmacies to supply personalized medicines are not significantly different from the age-old
practices. Current compounded pharmacies can be easily upgraded with minimal investment to produce 3D printed
drugs. In fact, the existing infrastructure in the majority of these pharmacies is generally adequate to start the
production of 3D printed dosage formulations.
Personalized medicines are generally required for pediatric populations, geriatrics or patients exhibiting allergy to
certain formulation components.2 The pediatric population is physiologically heterogeneous. They are categorized
into neonates (birth to 1 month), infants (1 month to 2 years), children (2 to 12 years) and adolescents (12 years to <16
years).16,17 The rapid developmental and physiological changes seen in the pediatric population affect the
pharmacokinetics of drugs significantly and hence the dosing needs vary from one pediatric group to another.
Consequently, age appropriate formulations with flexible dosing options are required that not only deliver a specific
dose, but also should be palatable to ensure adherence to the dosing regimen. Unfortunately, adequate age
appropriate formulations are not available and often adult doses are extemporaneously manipulated in compounding
pharmacies to cater to the needs of the pediatric population. However, quality, stability, pharmacokinetics, and
compliance to other CQAs are major concerns with extemporaneous preparations that raise serious concerns on safety
and efficacy of such formulations. With 3DP, personalized medicines can be prepared to meet the individual patient
needs by printing individual doses, dosage forms containing multiple drugs and dosage forms exhibiting a particular
rate of drug release. Similarly, geriatric patients can benefit immensely, who are often on multiple medications at any
given point due to the age-related changes in physiology and multiple comorbidities.2 Consequently, geriatric
patients are at high risk of developing adverse effects due to polypharmacy. Additionally, polypharmacy is responsible
for non- adherence to the medicines and has been shown to be responsible for frequent emergency visits to the
hospital.2 3DP can be used to print both mono as well as multidrug formulations that are easy to swallow. The
compliance to dosing regimen can be increased and as a result adverse effects may be reduced. Instead of dispensing
a cocktail of multiple pills, a once a day personalized polypill can be printed based on a physician’s prescription.2
The 3DP manufacturing processes can be executed in a resource limited environment such as pharmacy, clinic or
space and thus it enables ‘on-demand’ or ‘just-in-time’ pharmacy capability. While preparing printlets in pharmacy and
hospital setting, certain criteria laid in sections 501(a)(2)(B) (concerning cGMP requirements), section 502(f )(1)
(concerning the labelling of drugs with adequate directions for use) and section 505 (concerning the approval of drugs
under new drug applications or abbreviated new drug applications) of the Food, Drugs and Cosmetic Act (FD&C) may
be exempted.18,19 It is to be noted that for sterile products, compliance to cGMP is mandatory.
SLS can be used in fabricating specialized dosage forms such as orally disintegrating (ODT), sustained, extended
release, dual release profiles, abuse deterrent formulations and amorphous solid dispersion (ASD). The technology
offers unique capabilities which are difficult to achieve in traditional manufacturing. For instance, ODT prepared by
traditional manufacturing methods are limited by the tablet weight 500 mg and should disintegrate within 30 sec. The
3DP technology can produce highly porous structures which can disintegrate in a few seconds and meet
disintegration time requirements of less than 30 sec. Similarly, ASD of poorly soluble drugs can be fabricated in a one
step. Traditional manufacturing involves multiple steps such as preparing ASD by spray drying or hot melt extrusion
followed by capsule filling or tablet compression. SLS can produce ASD dosage forms in a single step with very low
crystalline fraction, which can be further controlled by process and formulation variables.
References
1. ISO / ASTM52900-15, Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing - General Principles - Terminology, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA. 2015.
2. Rahman Z, Barakh ASF, Ozkan T, Charoo NA, Reddy IK, Khan MA. Additive manufacturing with 3D printing:
progress from bench to bedside. AAPS J. 2018; 20(6):101.
3. Jacobson M. Lessons for medical device manufacturers using 3D printing. Med Device Online. July 18, 2018.
Available at: https://www.meddeviceonline.com/doc/lessons-for- medical-device-manufacturers-using-d-
printing-0001. Accessed November 10, 2020.
4. Spritam® FDA label, January 22, 2019. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/
drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/207958s008lbl.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2020.
5. Rahman Z, Charoo NA, Kuttolamadom M, Khan M, Printing of personalized medication using binder jetting 3D
printer. In: Faintuch J, Faintuch S, eds. Precision Medicine for Investigators, Practitioners and Providers. Elsevier,
2020:474-480.
6. Charoo NA, Ali SFB, Mohamed EM, Kuttolamadom MA, Ozkan T, Khan MA, Rahman Z. Selective laser sintering 3D
printing - an overview of the technology and pharmaceutical applications. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2020;46(6):869-
877.
7. Barakh Ali SF, Mohamed EM, Ozkan T, Kuttolamadom MA, Khan MA, Asadi A, Rahman Z. Understanding the
effects of formulation and process variables on the printlets quality manufactured by selective laser sintering 3D
printing. Int J. Pharm. 2019;570:118651.
8. Allahham N, Fina F, Marcuta C, Kraschew L, Mohr W, Gaisford S, Basit AW, Goyanes A. Selective laser sintering 3D
printing of orally disintegrating printlets containing ondansetron. Pharmaceutics 2020;12(2):110.
9. Awad A, Yao A, Trenfield SJ, Goyanes A, Gaisford S, Basit AW. 3D printed tablets (printlets) with Braille and Moon
patterns for visually impaired patients. Pharmaceutics 2020;12(2):172.
10. Fina F, Goyanes A, Gaisford S, Basit AW. Selective laser sintering (SLS) 3D printing of medicines. Int J Pharm.
2017;529:285-293.
11. Atheer A, Fabrizio F, Sarah JT, Pavanesh P, Alvaro G, Simon G, Abdul WB. 3D printed pellets (miniprintlets): a novel,
multi-drug, controlled release platform technology. Pharmaceutics 2019;11 (4):148.
12. Fina F, Madla CM, Goyanes A, Zhang J, Gaisford S, Basit AW. Fabricating 3D printed orally disintegrating printlets
using selective laser sintering. Int J Pharm. 2018;541:101-107.
13. Chatham CA, Long TE, Williams CB. A review of the process physics and material screening methods for polymer
powder bed fusion additive manufacturing, Prog Polym Sci. 2019;93:68-95.
14. Drexler M, Lexow M, Drummer D. Selective laser melting of polymer powder - part mechanics as function of
exposure speed. Phys Procedia. 2015;78:328-36.
15. Siew A. Increasing tablet production with multi-tip tooling. Pharma Tech. 2015. Available at:
http://www.pharmtech.com/increasing-tablet-production-multi-tip-toolin. Accessed November 10, 2020.
16. Joseph PD, Craig JC, Caldwell PH. Clinical trials in children. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;79(3):357-369.
17. Allen LV. Basics of compounding: 3D printing: Pharmacy applications, Part 1. Int J Pharm Compd. 2017;21(2):127-
130.
18. FDA guidance on pharmacy compounding of human drug products under section 503A of the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act 2016.
19. FDA guidance for industry - Orally disintegrating tablets, 2008. https://www.fda.gov/ media/70877/download.
Accessed November 10, 2020.
Author Biographies
Naseem A. Charoo is the co-founder and chief scientific officer at Succor Pharma Solutions. He has 17 years of experience in
pharmaceutical development. He is responsible for leading the R&D efforts to build product portfolio. Prior to joining the
company he worked in various organizations in Asia, Africa, Middle East and Latin America. Dr. Naseem earned a MS and
Ph.D. in Pharmaceutics from Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi.
Cyrus Funkhouser is a student at Texas A&M working towards his MS in Engineering Technology. He has earned a BS of
Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering Technology at Texas A&M. Prior to entering the MS program, Cyrus has worked
on another project regarding medical manufacturing: Design & Control of a Vibration-Added Haptic Device for Minimally
Invasive Surgical Simulation. Currently, he is working in a joint effort with the Department of Pharmaceutical Research as
well as the Department Engineering Technology and Industrial Distribution to further explore SLS of pharmaceutical tablets.
Dr. Mathew A. Kuttolamadom is an associate professor at Texas A&M University. With a background in design, materials
and manufacturing, his recent research has focused on laser-based AM of polymers, metals and ceramics, with a view to
tailor bioinspired and graded materials. Over the past 2-years, his team has extensively investigated the selective laser
sintering (SLS) of various pharmaceutical formulations, integrated thermal/other sensors to elucidate the process, and
comprehensively characterized the printlets.
Dr. Mansoor A. Khan is a professor and vice dean of college of pharmacy Texas A&M University. I served as a director of
product quality research and SBRS scientist in FDA for 11 years. I have had the privilege to serve as the FDA representative to
EMA (pediatric working group, and pediatric formulations committee), WHO (generic quality and pediatric guidelines
committee), USP (expert panel on dosage forms), FIP (Program chair and Keynote Speaker), DOD/DARPA (continuous
manufacturing advisory panel), Clinton HIV/AIDpanel(dosageformsexpert), NIH(PIonthe FDA:NIH IAG), and NASA (PI on the
FDA:NASA Research Cooperative Agreement). Prior to joining the FDA in 2004, I was a Professor of Pharmaceutics and
founding Director of the Graduate Program in the School of Pharmacy at Texas Tech University. Ihavepublishedover 300
peer-reviewedmanuscripts on the various dosage forms, manufacturing sciences and bioavailability-bioequivalence issues
related to drug products. I have also been an editor of five texts including “Quality by Design for Biopharmaceutical Product
Development”, and book chapters, 200 abstracts/poster presentations, and more than 250 invited presentations world-wide.
Dr. Ziyaur Rahman is an associate professor at Texas A&M University. Prior to joining Texas A&M University, he served as a
scientist and reviewer for seven years in FDA. His research focus at FDA was to support Chemistry, Manufacturing and
Controls, and the biopharmaceutics sections of NDAs and ANDAs. He was part of the team involved in approval of first 3D
printed drug product in 2015. He had had the privilege to serve as grants reviewer, FDA liaison to USP Expert Committee on
Excipients and scientist in ‘Immediate Release/Modified Release Work Group’ in FDA. He has received FDA/CDER Outstanding
ANDA Review, FDA/CDER Team Excellence, FDA/CDER Regulatory Science Excellence, FDA/CDER Special Recognition,
FDA/CDER Group Recognition, FDA/ CDER Leveraging Collaboration and Texas A&M Health “Teaching Team” awards. He has
published over 100 peer-reviewed publications and 13 book chapters. He serves on editorial board of Scientia
Pharmaceutica, American Journal of Analytical Chemistry, Current Nanomedicine, Pharmaceuticals, and Crystals journals.
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing »
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Equipment / Pharmaceutical Processing Equipment »
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Grate Magnets »
Comments
View publication stats
ALSO ON AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL REVIEW
Understanding FDA’s CSA Gu
Understanding FDA’s Improving An Interview with... P
CSA Guidance in the Pharmaceutical … Chris Weikart, Chief … C
25 days ago • 2 comments a year ago • 1 comment 6 months ago • 1 comment 1
Understanding FDA’s CSA Improving Pharmaceutical An Interview with... Chris P
Guidance in the Context of Analysis & QC Lab Weikart, Chief Scientist, C
Current Regulations and … Efficiency is Key SiO2 Material Science S
0 Comments American Pharmaceutical Review 🔒 Disqus' Privacy Policy Login
1
Recommend t Tweet f Share Sort by Best
Start the discussion…
LOG IN WITH
OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS ?
Name
Be the first to comment.
✉ Subscribe d Add Disqus to your siteAdd DisqusAdd ⚠ Do Not Sell My Data
About APR Resources Subscription
About Us Issue Archive Subscribe eNewsletters
Contact Us Newsletter Archive Subscribe Magazine
Press Room Excipient Search Manage Your Print Subscription American Pharmaceutical Review is the leading review
Privacy Policy Bioprocessing of business and technology for the pharmaceutical
Disclaimer Chromatography industry throughout North America.
Connect with Us
Excipients
Drug Delivery A Publication of
Write for Us
Advertise with Us
Formulation Development Facebook
Advertise With Us Instrumentation Twitter
Media Kit Microbiology LinkedIn
See our other sites »
Spectroscopy YouTube
Copyright © 2021 CompareNetworks, Inc. All rights reserved.
