Were your dentures, crowns made in China? Law would require disclosure

denturesYou know where your clothes are made. The country name is stitched on the tag. But do you know where the crowns, bridges and dentures in your mouth come from?

The Erie County Legislature thinks maybe you should.

Legislators are weighing a proposed local law that would require local dentists to disclose where the prosthetics they are cementing into your mouth were originally made.

Andy Jakson, owner of the Evolution Dental Science lab in Cheektowaga, has pushed the law after his firsthand experience working with a lab in China that purported to make crowns and other permanent dental fixtures for patients out of FDA-approved materials. In reality, the company was selling the FDA-approved materials on the black market and shipping back dental products made with inferior products.

“It’s silly that we’ve got to know where shoes are made because they’re going to be touching your skin, but something that is permanently placed in your mouth has no disclosure at all,” said Jakson, whose lab annually makes dental prosthetics worth $3 million. “It’s a medical device. I can’t even fathom why it’s not a law yet.”

The Food and Drug Administration requires that dental prosthetics like crowns and bridges last seven years. But many of these dental fixtures last patients 20 years or more. And if those fixtures aren’t being made to the proper health and safety standard, critics say, the possibility exists that they could absorb bacteria or leech contaminants into a person’s body.

Groups like the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have not found sufficient evidence that the general public is at much risk by having dental work made by overseas companies. But an investigative report from 2008 tested multiple crowns made in China and found they had unacceptable levels of lead.

Legislature Majority Leader Joseph Lorigo, who has an appointment to receive his first dental crown later this month, said patients have the right to know where their dental work is made. Area labs may partner with overseas companies to produce dental prosthetics that reduce costs, but rarely is that information voluntarily passed to patients.

Lorigo said he was shocked to learn that federal law requires the textile industry to list the fiber content, country of origin and care instructions for their fabrics, but the health community has no requirement to inform patients where medical devices implanted in their bodies are made.

He submitted a proposed law on Monday that likely will be sent to the Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee for discussion on Monday. He said he anticipates it will receive bipartisan support, though he remains interested in receiving feedback on the proposal.

“The law, in my opinion, is a perfect example of the legislative process working the exact way it’s supposed to,” said Lorigo, C-West Seneca. “I’m going to hope we can have it passed in the fall.”

His broader hope is that the legislation gains steam at higher levels of government.

Jakson brought the issue to the Legislature’s attention several months ago, recounting how his dental lab had partnered with a lab in China about a decade ago. To ensure the lab met FDA requirements, Jakson said he spent three weeks in Shenzhen, China, touring five different dental labs to assess their ability to meet U.S. standards. He picked one of the pricier labs that seemed trustworthy.

To ensure the lab used FDA-grade materials, he said, his company shipped U.S. materials to the Chinese lab. But the quality of the products he was getting in return made him suspicious, he said, so he ceased shipping one particularly popular shade of dental-grade porcelain.

That didn’t stop the overseas lab from continuing to ship back finished products supposedly made with the porcelain that Jakson was no longer sending. So he had the products tested by the U.S. manufacturer that made the raw materials. That company confirmed the dental products shipped back to Jakson were not made from the same materials Jakson sent over.

The Chinese company gave dishonest explanations for what happened, he said, and a liaison later informed him the materials he sent over had been sold on the black market. In addition, he said, one box of finished prosthetics that had been held up at the border finally arrived with mold growing on the dental models, suggesting the use of unclean water.

He also pointed out that overseas labs in places like China typically can’t be sued, leaving U.S. labs, dentists and patients with little recourse if a dental prosthetic turns out to be made under false pretenses.

The law under consideration by the Legislature would require two types of disclosure regarding the origin of the custom crowns, bridges, dentures and veneers: Dental labs must disclose the origin of their prosthetics to dentists, and dentists must disclose the origin of their prosthetics to patients.

Failure to do so would result in fines starting at $1,000 and increasing to $5,000 and misdemeanor charges for repeat offenders.

In response to the possibility that the proposed law may be imposing unwanted regulations on businesses or narrow profit margins, Jakson said, “This is not about increasing or decreasing somebody’s business. This is about the safety of the patient.”

Original news link http://buffalonews.com/2017/07/11/law-give-patients-info-dental-crowns-bridges-made/

By  | Published 7:00 a.m. July 11, 2017 | Updated 11:17 a.m. July 11, 2017


Building the Future Factories

(The Economist)

SLOWLY but surely the sole of a shoe emerges from a bowl of liquid resin, as Excalibur rose from the enchanted lake. And, just as Excalibur was no ordinary sword, this is no ordinary sole. It is light and flexible, with an intricate internal structure, the better to help it support the wearer’s foot. Paired with its solemate it will underpin a set of trainers from a new range planned by Adidas, a German sportswear firm.

Adidas intends to use the 3D-printed soles to make trainers at two new, highly automated factories in Germany and America, instead of producing them in the low-cost Asian countries to which most trainer production has been outsourced in recent years. The firm will thus be able to bring its shoes to market faster and keep up with fashion trends. At the moment, getting a design to the shops can take months. The new factories, each of which is intended to turn out up to 500,000 pairs of trainers a year, should cut that to a week or less.

As this example shows, 3D printing has come a long way, quickly. In February 2011, when The Economist ran a story called “Print me a Stradivarius”, the idea of printing objects still seemed extraordinary. Now, it is well established. Additive manufacturing, as it is known technically, is speeding up prototyping designs and is also being used to make customised and complex items for actual sale. These range from false teeth, via jewellery, to parts for cars and aircraft. 3D printing is not yet ubiquitous. Generally, it remains too slow for mass production, too expensive for some applications and for others produces results not up to the required standard. But, as Adidas’s soles show, these shortcomings are being dealt with. It is not foolish to believe that 3D printing will power the factories of the future. Nor need the technology be restricted to making things out of those industrial stalwarts, metal and plastic. It is also capable of extending manufacturing’s reach into matters biological.

There are many ways to print something in three dimensions, but all have one thing in common: instead of cutting, drilling and milling objects, as a conventional factory does, to remove material and arrive at the required shape, a 3D printer starts with nothing and add stuffs to it. The adding is done according to instructions from a computer program that contains a virtual representation of the object to be made, stored as a series of thin slices. These slices are reproduced as successive layers of material until the final shape is complete.

Typically, the layers are built up by extruding filaments of molten polymer, by inkjet-printing material contained in cartridges or by melting sheets of powder with a laser. Adidas’s soles, however, emerge in a strikingly different way—one that is, according to Joseph DeSimone, the result of chemists rather than engineers thinking about how to make things additively. Dr DeSimone is the boss of Carbon, the firm that produces the printer which makes the soles. He is also a professor of chemistry at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Carbon’s printer uses a process called digital light synthesis, which Dr DeSimone describes as “a software-controlled chemical reaction to grow parts”. It starts with a pool of liquid polymer held in a shallow container that has a transparent base. An ultraviolet image of the first layer of the object to be made is projected through the base. This cures (ie, solidifies) a corresponding volume of the polymer, reproducing the image in perfect detail. That now-solid layer attaches itself to the bottom of a tool lowered into the pool from above. The container’s base itself is permeable to oxygen, a substance that inhibits curing. This stops the layer of cured polymer sticking to the base as well, and thus permits the tool to lift that layer slightly. The process is then repeated with a second layer being added to the first from below. And so on. As the desired shape is completed, the tool lifts it out of the container. It is then baked in an oven to strengthen it.

Dr DeSimone says that digital light synthesis overcomes two common problems of 3D printing. First, it is up to 100 times faster than existing polymer-based printers. Second, the baking process knits the layers together more effectively, making for a stronger product and also one that has smooth surfaces, which reduces the need for additional processing.

All this, he reckons, makes digital light synthesis competitive with injection moulding, a mass-production process which has been used in factories for nearly 150 years. Injection moulding works by forcing molten plastic into a mould. Once the plastic has solidified, this mould opens to eject the part. Injection moulding is fast and extremely accurate, but making the moulds and setting up the production line is slow and expensive. Injection moulding is therefore efficient only when making thousands of identical things.

The usual economies of scale, however, barely apply to 3D printers. Their easy-to-change software means they can turn out one-off items with the same equipment and materials needed to make thousands. That alters the nature of manufacturing. For example, instead of having vast warehouses packed with spare parts, Caterpillar and John Deere, two American producers of construction and agricultural equipment, are working with Carbon on moving their warehouses, in effect, to the online cloud, whence digital designs can be downloaded to different locations for parts to be printed to order.

Printers made by established producers are improving, too. They are speeding up, enhancing quality and printing more colours and in a wider variety of polymers, including rubbery materials. Two of the biggest firms in the business, 3D Systems and Stratasys, were joined last year by a third American company when HP, well known for conventional printers in offices, entered the market with a range of 3D plastic printers costing from $130,000. According to the latest report by Wohlers, a consultancy, the number of firms manufacturing serious kit for 3D printing (ie, not hobby printers, but systems priced from $5,000 to $1m and more) rose to 97 in 2016 from 62 a year earlier. Nor is purchase always necessary. Whereas many producers sell their machines outright, Carbon follows a “software” model and leases them to customers at a price starting from $40,000 a year. And, like software firms, it updates its machines over the internet.

New metallica

Printing polymers, which have low melting-points and co-operative chemistry, is reasonably easy. Printing metals is another matter entirely. Metal printers use either lasers or electron beams to reach the temperatures needed to melt successive layers of powder into a solid object. This takes place in multiple stages: depositing the powder, spreading it and, finally, fusing it.

Such printers can produce extremely intricate shapes, but may need to run for several days to make a single item. For high-end components used in low-volume products, such as supercars, aircraft, satellites and medical equipment, this can, nevertheless, be worth the wait. 3D printing, which is able to create voids inside objects far more easily than subtractive manufacturing can manage, increases the range of possible designs. There are cost savings, too. Addition, which deposits metal only where it is needed, generates less scrap than subtraction. That saving matters. Many of the specialist alloys used in high-tech engineering are exotic and expensive.

These advantages have been enough to persuade GE, one of the world’s biggest manufacturers, to invest $1.5bn in 3D printing. In Auburn, Alabama, for example, the firm has spent $50m on a factory to print fuel nozzles for the new LEAP jet engine, which it is building with Safran of France. By 2020, the plant in Auburn should be printing 35,000 fuel nozzles a year.

A kilo saved is a trophy won

Each LEAP uses 19 nozzles, which have new features, such as complex cooling ducts, that GE says can be created in no other way. The nozzles are printed as single structures instead of being welded together from 20 or more components as previous versions were. The new nozzles are also 25% lighter than older designs, which saves fuel. And they are five times more durable, which reduces servicing costs.

More such developments are coming. GKN Aerospace, a British firm, recently signed a five-year agreement with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in Tennessee, to find new ways to print large structural aircraft parts in titanium. The intention is to reduce waste material by as much as 90% and to cut assembly time in half.

Existing metal printers can be as big as a car, and some cost $1m or more. What, though, might companies achieve if they had smaller, cheaper metal printers? Ric Fulop thinks he can make such machines. Mr Fulop is the boss of Desktop Metal, a firm he co-founded in 2015 with a group of professors from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and nearly $100m in cash from investors that include GE, Stratasys and BMW. The firm’s first printers are now coming to market.

Instead of zapping layers of powder with a laser or an electron beam, Desktop Metal’s machines use a process called bound-metal deposition. This also involves a bit of cooking. First, the machine extrudes a mixture of metal powder and polymers to build up a shape, much as some plastic printers do. When complete, the result goes into an oven. This burns off the polymers and compacts the metal particles by sintering them together at just below their melting point. The outcome is a dense metallic object, rather like one that has been cast the old-fashioned way as a solid chunk of metal. The sintering causes the object to shrink. But this can be compensated for by printing it a little larger than required, because the shrinkage occurs in a predictable way.

Desktop Metal makes two sorts of machine. Its Studio system, priced at around $120,000, is designed for prototypes and small production runs. A full-scale system costs just over $400,000. By incorporating a conventional metal printer’s multiple production stages into a single “sweep” of the print head, Desktop Metal’s machines are fast. According to Mr Fulop, they can build and bake objects at the rate of 500 cubic inches (8,194cm3) an hour. That compares with about 1-2 cubic inches with a conventional laser-based metal printer, or 5 cubic inches with an electron-beam machine.

On top of all this, because the materials used by Desktop Metal’s printers are already employed in other industrial processes they are, according to Mr Fulop, 80% cheaper than some specialist 3D-printing powders. And they require less finishing to remove rough surfaces. Improvements such as these can change the economics of manufacturing (see article).

Printing a bit of you

One of the earliest adopters of additive manufacturing was the medical industry. For good reason; everybody is different, and so, therefore, should be any prosthetics they might need. As a result, millions of individually sculpted dental implants and hearing-aid shells are now printed, as are a growing number of other devices, such as orthopaedic implants. The big prize, however, is printing living tissue for transplants. Though this idea is still largely experimental, several groups of researchers are already using bioprinters to make cartilage, skin and other tissues.

Bioprinters can work in several ways. The simplest use syringes to extrude a mixture of cells and a printing medium, a method similar to that used by a desktop printer in plastic. Others employ a form of inkjet printing. Some medical researchers are trying a form of 3D printing called laser-induced forward transfer. In this, a thin film is coated on its underside with the material to be printed. Laser-pulses focused onto the film’s upper surface cause spots of that material to detach themselves and land on a substrate below. Sometimes, though, the third dimension needs a helping hand. Certain printers therefore impose the desired shape by printing cells directly onto a pre-prepared scaffold, which dissolves away once the cells have proliferated sufficiently to hold their own shape.

Anthony Atala and his colleagues at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, in North Carolina, have printed ears, bones and muscles in this way, and have implanted them successfully into animals. The crucial part of the process is ensuring the printed tissue survives and then integrates with the recipient when transplanted. Some types of tissue, such as cartilage, are easy to grow outside the body. Infusing nutrients into the medium they are kept in is sufficient to sustain them, and they tend to take well when transferred to a living organism. More complex structures, though, like hearts, livers and pancreases, require a blood supply to grow beyond being tiny slivers of cells. Dr Atala and his colleagues therefore print minute channels through their structures, to let nutrients and oxygen diffuse in. This encourages blood vessels to develop. The next step, probably within a few years, will be to test such bioprinted material on people.

All clever stuff. But what was missing in bioprinting, reckoned Erik Gatenholm and Hector Martinez, two biotechnology entrepreneurs, was some form of standardised “bio-ink”. So, in January 2016, they founded a firm called Cellink to commercialise bioprinting materials developed at the Chalmers University of Technology, in Gothenburg, Sweden.

Cellink’s ink is made from nanocellulose alginate, a biodegradable material containing wood fibres and a sugary polymer found in seaweed. Researchers first mix their cells into the bio-ink and then extrude the result as a filament from which the desired shape is constructed. The company has gone on to develop tissue-specific bio-inks that contain growth factors needed to stimulate particular types of cells, including stem cells. These are cells that can proliferate to produce any of the cell types that form a particular tissue. If the stem cells in question are obtained from the patient into whom the transplant will later be inserted, that will reduce the risk that the transplant will be rejected.

In addition to making bio-ink, Cellink has also launched its own range of printers. These are sold at a discount to universities in return for research feedback. That provides a good picture of what is going on. In particular, says Mr Gatenholm, advances are being made in printing tissues for drug testing. One is to employ a patient’s own cancer cells to print multiple versions of his tumour. Each can then be challenged with a different drug, or mixture of drugs, to help determine what treatment will work best. For actual transplantation, Mr Gatenholm suggests that cartilage, followed by skin, are likely to be the first tissues printed for such use. Organs that need blood vessels will follow.

Bioprinting, then, looks set to become a new manufacturing industry—albeit one located at medical centres and operating in sterile conditions that more resemble a laboratory than a production plant. But even the less esoteric forms of 3D printing, those involving plastics and metals, will transform what a factory is. The 3D print shops of the future will still have some workers. But those will mainly be hardware and software engineers. And they are more likely to be wearing white coats rather than overalls.

Designers meet 3D Printing Challenge

Call for participants!
Fablab Venice, in collaboration with Wasp, an Italian manufacturer of 3D printers, new appointment with design and digital prototyping. The second edition of the contest is calling upon designers and creatives to design a piece of furniture or a complement that can interpret the most out of printing on large format 3D.

The presence in our laboratory a printer Wasp Delta 3m, can print objects up to one cubic meter, will give the opportunity to touch and learn how to work in relation to this type of innovative machines.
An opportunity to test their skills on some of the most interesting issues for contemporary design and talk in person with the possibilities of digital manufacturing.

The 3D printer in fact, born as rapid prototyping technology in industrial contexts, is spreading increasingly in various fields, from design to cuisine. Its innovative potential and possible future developments and applications are still incredible.
In the field of industrial design, in particular, the use of new 3D large format printers that can print entire furnishing items in a short time, at low cost and remarkable economy of material, is of particular interest and could be able, in the near future, to revolutionize the processes of production and marketing of design.

The appointment is then inserted within a larger reflection on the new frontiers of the project of decorative objects and accessories and the search trends and testing of Wasp. The possibilities of the economy maker, theorized by the Italian and presented at the last edition of the Maker Faire Rome, push themselves to the conceptualization and implementation of new ways of living and building the newspaper, in a scenario in which everything from home furnishings to both printed in 3d or made with innovative technologies and open source mentality.

The challenge of the structure provides an intensive design day during which the designers and creative people will be called to develop the project of an object of original furnishings that values and uses consciously the potential and limitations of printing technology 3d hot filament, coming to modeling, communication, and prototyping scale model.
All projects developed will be evaluated by a panel that will decide the best results. The winning project will be implemented in full scale using the printer DeltaWasp 3m.

The challenge will take place on July 1, 2017, at Fablab Venice (Via della Libertà 12, Port Building Innovation at Vega Science and Technology Park of Venice Porto Marghera).
Participants will be engaged for 12 consecutive hours, from 9.00 to 21.00.

To participate send a mail to info@fablabvenezia.org by 23 June 2017.
The participation fee is € 15 and includes dinner (pizza) and printing in PLA 1:10 designed object.
The maximum number of participants is 12.

notebook PCs installed with Rhinoceros (or other 3d modeling program of your choice) and software for slicing Care, version 2.5.
Basics of modeling.

1st place: 500 credits * and full-scale release of their projects
2nd place: 200 credits *
3rd place: 100 credits *
* Credits are the FabLab domestic currency (one credit is equivalent to one euro) and can be used in ‘ use machines or to attend one of the courses / workshops organized by the laboratory.

h. 9 – 9:15 Welcoming of the participants
h. 9.15 – 10 Brief Introduction to the Economy Maker, 3D printing and design tips
h. 10 – 16:45 Development of the project and the 3d model
h. 13.30 Lunch at Fablab
h. 16:45 Preparing files for prototyping
h. 17 Prototyping
h. 19 Exposure to the jury and the participants of the project proposals
h. Pizza 20
h. 21 Awards & Goodbye


notebook PCs installed with Rhinoceros (or other 3d modeling program of your choice) and software for slicing Care, version 2.5.
Basics of modeling.

1. The competition is open to all designers who have come of age.
2. Everyone develops their own project, you can not make a team work.
3. Each will have to bring their own computers and possess basic knowledge of the three-dimensional modeling.
4. The designer will be expected to follow the guidelines for the design, taking into account the characteristics, intended as limitations / opportunities, manufacturing through 3D printing.
5. The jury will select the most deserving project. The opinion of the jury is final.
6. The project chosen by the jury will be carried out in real scale of Wasp and exhibited at events in Italy or abroad.
7. The contestant maintains all rights to economic use of the proposed project.

Driving and design tips Lines
• Installation area: 1m cube.
• Ergonomics and functionality of the object (possibility: achieving ergonomics multifunction models, the furniture usability in cultural-socio-economic multiple contexts).
• Possibility of modularity and / or scalability of the model.
• Economical in terms of implementation (time machine, amount extruded material).
• Possibility of use in different contexts and cultures (even where there are no facilities and materials are used of the place, for example in developing countries).
• Reproducibility through 3D printing of large format:
– avoid the use of supports, ie supports commonly used in 3D printing to
hold the model in the case of forms cantilever;
– to evaluate the maximum angles of inclination of the walls of the model with respect to vertical depending on the extruded material and shape choice.
• Consider that the model may have different percentages and filling forms (understood as a grid of internal stiffening that is generated during the generation of the machine code through the software Care and not in the modeling phase).
• The model should be constituted by a single component.
• Reproducibility through the use of various materials (dense fluid compounds deposited cold or after a merger or materials that will be used in the new Wasp printer).
• The minimum thickness of a wall of the model necessary for the full-scale printing must be 3 mm (thickness of the nozzle Wasp printer).

Do not worry, we are here to help you and follow you!

Criteria Jury evaluation
The winner is chosen considering a number of factors, individually rated on a scale of 1 to 5:
• Functionality / Ergonomics
• 3D modeling
• Evaluation of the success of the prototype
• Cost of prototype
• Interpretation of the theme / Creativity / Originality – Reproducibility through the use of various materials – final presentation

You can download the poster, call and information about the event here .

3D Printers Buyer’s Guide

Find the right equipment for the right application. Here’s a BUYER’S GUIDE https://goo.gl/LJ3iGc

Find the Best Fit For Your Organization


In our 3D printer buyer guide you’ll find technology and material comparisons plus hard-to-find answers about 3D printer pricing and cost of ownership.

It’ll answer your top questions in four easy-to-follow sections:

  • Technologies – learn how each technology works, where it excels, its drawbacks and the materials it uses

  • Materials – compare material properties and get links to detailed specifications

  • Operations – learn what skills, equipment and facilities you’ll need to support each technology in-house, and purchase alternatives

  • Budget – see 3D printer price ranges and learn what to consider when calculating costs