Abstract
Three-Dimensional Printing (3DP) is rapidly emerging as a pivotal technology for advancing Facilities Management (FM) toward smart and sustainable buildings. This systematic review, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, critically evaluates 3DP applications, benefits, and challenges across core FM domains—construction, maintenance and repair, supply chain management, and specialized applications—through analysis of 179 studies. To our knowledge, this represents the first comprehensive, FM-specific systematic review of 3DP implementation frameworks. Evidence synthesis reveals that 3DP enables on-demand, localized manufacturing of bespoke components, with documented inventory cost reductions in maintenance applications, substantial production cost decreases for complex geometries, and significant lead time improvements from traditional procurement cycles to rapid on-demand fulfillment for spare parts applications. However, quantitative evidence remains limited and context-dependent, particularly regarding economic feasibility and scalability. 3DP adoption in FM faces significant barriers: quality assurance protocols, workforce readiness, BIM/IoT integration challenges, and regulatory uncertainty. This review identifies the absence of validated decision-making frameworks to guide FM professionals on 3DP implementation versus traditional alternatives, a fundamental research and practice gap. Through structured quality assessment and stakeholder analysis, we propose strategic recommendations emphasizing cross-sector collaboration, standardization development, and workforce upskilling. A novel conceptual decision framework supports practical implementation decisions. These findings position 3DP as potentially transformative for sustainable building operations while highlighting critical research priorities for systematic FM sector deployment.
1. Introduction
1.1. Background and Context
Facility Management (FM), is the cornerstone of operational efficiency and sustainability across various industries, encompassing a range of critical functions including maintenance, asset management, space utilization, and strategic operations [,]. At its core, FM optimizes the interaction between people, places, processes, and technologies to ensure the effective and safe operation of the built environment (Figure 1). Traditionally viewed as a maintenance-oriented discipline, FM has evolved into a multifaceted field that integrates interdisciplinary strategies aimed at enhancing productivity, sustainability, and service delivery [].
Figure 1.
Main Elements of FM and Purpose.
FM has rapidly become a core driver of organizational performance and sustainable development. Its strategic integration of asset management, maintenance, energy stewardship, and digital transformation optimizes productivity, safety, and cost-effectiveness in the built environment. Figure 2 further illustrates how workplace management frameworks align FM functions with broader organizational goals.
Figure 2.
Workplace management framework [].
The growing complexity in FM results from increasing stakeholder expectations, resource constraints, and ambitious decarbonization targets defining modern infrastructure management [].
Despite advances in digital building technologies, such as sensors, the Internet of Things (IoT), and Building Information Modeling (BIM), FM still faces persistent challenges. These include reactive maintenance patterns, fragmented data, supply chain bottlenecks, and limited innovation throughout facility life cycles. Such issues can hinder FM from achieving critical goals in sustainability, resilience, and organizational value [].
A significant shift is underway as FM professionals adopt disruptive, data-driven technologies to address these gaps. Three-Dimensional Printing (3DP), or Additive Manufacturing (AM), is increasingly seen as transformational for FM. 3DP enables on-demand creation of customized building components, rapid prototyping, waste reduction, and extended asset lifespans, improving responsiveness, supply chain flexibility, and cost control. The integration of 3DP with digital twins, BIM, and advanced analytics is expected to propel FM toward more agile, data-driven, and sustainable operations [].
This review examines the current state of 3DP in FM by synthesizing peer-reviewed research and case studies in construction, maintenance and repair, and supply chain management. The analysis highlights proven benefits, current barriers, and strategic opportunities for integrating 3DP with digital technologies. The objective is to provide actionable insights and set a research agenda for embedding 3DP into smart, sustainable FM strategies, guiding researchers, practitioners, and policymakers shaping the future of building operations.
1.2. Literature Review
1.2.1. The Evolution of Facilities Management
Facilities Management (FM) has undergone a profound transformation over recent decades, shifting from a reactive, maintenance-focused activity to a comprehensive strategic discipline that underpins long-term organizational performance and sustainability. Early perspectives defined FM largely in terms of building upkeep and operations; however, contemporary definitions emphasize integrated management of people, places, processes, and technologies to optimize resource use, support safety, and promote environmental stewardship [,,,].
This broadened scope now encompasses asset management, real estate strategy, energy optimization, and business continuity planning, as evidenced by the substantial impact of FM in industry benchmarks such as the UK, where FM contributes over £115 billion annually and accounts for nearly 3% of the workforce [,]. Despite this sectoral growth, FM is challenged by the lack of a universally accepted definition and a fragmented theoretical foundation, with varying schools of thought emphasizing service delivery, infrastructure management, or the integration of people, spaces, and systems. The field is further shaped by interdependent life cycle phases ranging from initial design and construction to testing, commissioning, ongoing operations, and eventual decommissioning [].
1.2.2. Contemporary FM Challenges and Digital Innovation
As FM’s responsibilities have expanded, so have the challenges associated with managing more complex and dynamic built environments. Persistent issues, including reactive maintenance approaches, siloed data, costly supply interruptions, and limited real-time visibility, underscore the need for a technological paradigm shift. The deployment of sensing technologies, integrated workplace management systems (IWMS), and BIM platforms has provided valuable improvements in efficiency and oversight, but these innovations often fall short of providing end-to-end FM solutions [,].
Among the promising developments within Industry 4.0 [], Three-Dimensional Printing (3DP) emerges as a uniquely disruptive technology for FM. By enabling agile, on-demand production of parts, reducing waste, and supporting mass customization, 3DP can address many of the sector’s most persistent pain points, especially when combined with advances in BIM, digital twins, and IoT [].
1.2.3. Overview of 3DP
3DP, also known as Additive Manufacturing (AM), describes a suite of techniques for fabricating three-dimensional objects layer-by-layer using digital model data. Initially developed for rapid prototyping in the 1980s, 3DP now encompasses a wide array of processes (e.g., fused deposition modeling, stereolithography, selective laser sintering, binder jetting) and applications across industries such as aerospace, automotive, healthcare, architecture, and education [,]. The various 3DP technologies can be classified based on their base materials and processing methods, as illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Classification of AM/3DP based on materials used [].
The additive manufacturing process fundamentally consists of four key stages: (a) Digital design creation using CAD software, (b) Model slicing into printable layers using specialized software, (c) Layer-by-layer production through material deposition or fusion, and (d) post-processing including support removal, surface finishing, and quality inspection [], as illustrated in Figure 4. Unlike traditional subtractive manufacturing, which removes material from a solid block, or formative manufacturing, which uses molds, 3DP builds objects additively, enabling complex internal geometries impossible with conventional methods []. Each 3DP technology varies in material handling: FDM melts thermoplastic filaments, SLA polymerizes liquid resins using UV light, SLS fuses powder particles with lasers, while binder jetting selectively deposits binding agents onto powder beds [,,].
Figure 4.
3D Printing Process.
The primary strengths of 3DP include the realization of complex geometries otherwise impossible with conventional manufacturing, substantial savings of time and materials, and the potential for cost-effective mass customization. These benefits are increasingly relevant for FM, which frequently requires bespoke replacement components, rapid prototyping for repair, and agile supply solutions for aging or specialized assets []. Nevertheless, the adoption of 3DP is also accompanied by challenges, such as material constraints, regulatory hurdles, and the need for workforce retraining, a need echoed globally [] with a sixfold increase in demand for additive technicians and digital operators by 2030, that must be systematically addressed to unlock full sectoral value [,].
Successful 3DP integration in FM requires understanding key technical and operational factors that influence technology selection and performance outcomes. Different 3DP technologies serve distinct FM applications based on resolution, speed, and material capabilities: FDM systems (0.1–0.4 mm resolution) suit structural components, SLA systems (0.025–0.1 mm resolution) enable precision parts, while SLS handles complex geometries with metal and polymer materials. The layer-by-layer fabrication process begins with digital model slicing, followed by sequential material deposition or curing, and concludes with post-processing steps including support removal and surface finishing []. Implementation demands integration with existing CAD libraries and BIM systems, standardized file formats (STL, 3MF), and workforce training in design principles and quality control protocols. Material handling varies from humidity-controlled thermoplastic storage for FDM to inert atmosphere requirements for metal powder systems [].
Technology selection should evaluate total ownership costs including equipment ($5000–$500,000), materials ($25–$500/kg), and training investments [,,]. Successful implementation requires understanding design constraints such as minimum wall thickness (0.4–1.0 mm for FDM), overhang limitations, and build volume restrictions that influence part orientation and assembly strategies. Break-even analysis typically favors 3DP for low-volume, high-customization applications common in FM environments, with documented cost advantages in spare parts production and emergency repairs []. This technical foundation enables informed decision-making for FM applications across construction, maintenance, and supply chain domains discussed in Section 3 throughout this review.
1.2.4. Limitations and Challenges of 3DP Technology
Despite its significant advantages, 3D printing faces several inherent limitations within facilities management applications, including material constraints such as a narrower range of compatible options compared to traditional manufacturing, alongside concerns about long-term durability and UV resistance for outdoor use []. The layer-by-layer nature of fabrication typically results in slower production speeds for high-volume output than processes like injection molding, while most methods produce visible layer lines that require additional post-processing to achieve a high-quality surface finish []. 3D printing technologies are further limited by the maximum build volumes supported by current equipment, restricting the dimensions of components that can be produced in one piece []. Adoption of industrial-grade printers demands substantial initial capital investment, and successful implementation within facilities management relies on specialized technical expertise in areas such as CAD design, materials science, and printer operation [].
1.3. Scope of Review
This review focuses specifically on the applications, benefits, and challenges of Three-Dimensional Printing (3DP) within the scope of Facilities Management (FM) for smart and sustainable building operations. The analysis includes peer-reviewed journal articles and high-impact conference proceedings published from 2010 onwards, with an emphasis on empirical studies, systematic reviews, and sector-focused case reports. Only publications in English were included. Technologies addressed comprise a broad range of additive manufacturing methods relevant to FM, notably excluding biomedical and non-FM-specific manufacturing contexts. Geographical coverage is global, aiming to capture diverse case applications and strategies. The review does not address purely theoretical or simulation-only studies lacking operational relevance to FM.
1.4. Problem Statement
Despite increasing interest in digital transformation within the built environment, the integration of 3DP into FM remains underexplored, fragmented, and largely anecdotal.
This systematic review directly addresses these limitations by synthesizing domain-specific evidence, critically mapping barriers and opportunities for 3DP adoption in FM, and outlining a research agenda to advance both practical implementation and academic scholarship.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review dedicated specifically to 3DP in facilities management, aiming to establish a cornerstone for further research toward sustainability, operational efficiency, and resilience in smart FM practices.
1.5. Objectives
This review aims to provide facilities managers, researchers, and practitioners with a critical, sector-specific synthesis of three-dimensional printing (3DP) applications and challenges in FM. The objectives are to:
- Map and critically assess current 3DP applications in FM domains such as construction, maintenance, and supply chains.
- Evaluate key benefits, including on-demand, localized fabrication, reduced downtime, and sustainability gains, and major barriers to adoption, such as workforce readiness, material limitations, regulatory uncertainty, and standardization issues.
- Propose actionable recommendations for integrating 3DP with digital FM tools (e.g., BIM, digital twins) and outline a future research agenda to guide evidence-based, effective deployment.
2. Methodology
This section presents the systematic methodology employed to identify, evaluate, and synthesize literature on 3D printing applications in facility management. The methodology encompasses five key components: database selection and search strategies, systematic screening and inclusion criteria, quality assessment frameworks, data extraction protocols, and thematic analysis approaches. Each component is designed to ensure comprehensive coverage while maintaining methodological rigor and minimizing bias. This systematic approach establishes the evidence base for the subsequent analysis and recommendations presented in this study.
2.1. Review Design
This systematic review applies a concept-centric synthesis framework to map and critically evaluate the intersection of 3D Printing (3DP) and Facilities Management (FM). The methodology was structured to ensure that the analysis draws from high-quality, peer-reviewed research while maintaining FM-specific relevance throughout.
To strengthen methodological transparency, the review was also aligned with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The completed PRISMA 2020 Checklist is provided as Supplementary Material. The process combined structured database searches with other identification methods (citation chaining and organizational/website sources). Records were subjected to duplicate removal, title/abstract screening, full-text eligibility assessment, and final inclusion. A quality appraisal framework was further applied to assess methodological rigor and relevance. Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 provide a visual overview of the search strategy, domain distribution, PRISMA study selection, and quality appraisal outcomes.
2.2. Data Collection Strategy
A comprehensive search was conducted using well-established academic databases including Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, MDPI, and ProQuest. Searches were limited to literature published after 2010, reflecting the maturity of 3DP applications and the continued evolution of FM as a discipline. Keywords such as “3D printing,” “additive manufacturing,” “facilities management,” and “potential applications” were used. Reference lists were scanned for additional relevant sources.
This multi-source approach is detailed in Figure 5, which depicts the integration of database and supplementary search strategies.
Figure 5.
Search criteria and process of collection.
2.3. Screening, Inclusion, and Exclusion Criteria
- Inclusion:
- ○
- Articles focusing explicitly on 3DP/AM applications in FM-related construction, building operations, maintenance, and FM-related supply chains.
- ○
- Empirical studies, case reports, systematic reviews, and high-impact conference contributions.
- ○
- Studies published in English, post-2010.
- Exclusion:
- ○
- Duplicate records, non-English publications, and sources lacking substantive methodological description or sectoral relevance.
- ○
- Non-peer-reviewed or commercial/promotional articles.
The screening process followed (Figure 6) PRISMA guidelines:
Figure 6.
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.
2.4. Data Extraction and Thematic Categorization
Data from selected studies were coded under: 3DP technology type, FM application domain, stakeholder impacts, operational outcomes, and barriers/enablers. Empirical results were extracted verbatim where available.
2.5. Sector Domain Distribution
The included studies were classified by Facilities Management domain to highlight concentrations and research gaps. Figure 7 presents this distribution, categorizing studies into construction, supply chain management, maintenance and repair, and other FM-related applications. This domain-wise breakdown clarifies the thematic emphasis of current research and provides context for the analytical framework adopted in the subsequent findings.
Figure 7.
Percentage Contribution-Domain-specific literature.
Beyond domain-level classification, it is equally important to present the review process in its entirety, from initial identification to synthesis. This ensures transparency in how the included studies were collected, filtered, and analyzed.
2.6. Quality Assurance and Study Assessment
Quality Assessment Framework: We developed four binary criteria to evaluate study quality: peer-reviewed publication, FM domain relevance, methodological transparency, and data availability. These criteria were selected to balance rigor with inclusivity, recognizing that restrictive filters might exclude valuable case studies in this emerging field. The distribution of quality scores across these criteria is visualized in Figure 8.
Data Coding: We coded each study across five dimensions: technology type (FDM, SLA, SLS, etc.), FM domain (construction, maintenance, supply chain), study methodology, reported outcomes (lead time, cost, quality metrics), and implementation factors (skills, standards, integration needs).
Inter-Rater Process: Two authors independently coded 20 studies (11% sample) to establish consistency, resolving disagreements through discussion. We divided the remaining studies between reviewers with regular cross-checking of coding decisions.
Limitations: We acknowledge that no formal inter-rater statistics were computed due to qualitative coding categories. Our binary quality criteria don’t capture methodological nuances. Meta-analysis wasn’t attempted due to study heterogeneity. The English-language, peer-reviewed focus may have excluded relevant industry reports.
Figure 8.
Quality appraisal scores (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) across peer-review, FM relevance, transparency, and availability.
3. Applications and Results
This section synthesizes empirical findings from the reviewed literature, organized by key FM application domains. Each subsection examines specific implementations, documented benefits, and operational outcomes to establish the current state of 3D printing integration in facility management practice. The section concludes with a comparative analysis identifying patterns, gaps, and emerging trends across all application areas.
The analysis focuses on three core domains where 3D printing intersects with facility management: construction, supply chain management, and maintenance & repair. Each domain is examined through sectoral case studies and tabular summaries that demonstrate how 3D printing addresses persistent FM operational challenges, beginning with construction applications.
3.1. Summary of Representative Studies
To provide a high-level overview of the current state of research on 3D printing within FM domains, the following table summarizes key representative studies evaluated in this review. Each entry includes the FM domain, technology involved, main findings, and noted limitations as stated in following Table 1.
Table 1.
High-level overview of 3DP research in FM.
3.2. Construction Applications
3.2.1. Role and Advantages
3DP has profoundly expanded possibilities in FM construction by enabling rapid, on-site fabrication of custom-building components, prototyping architectural features, and reducing both lead times and material waste. The technology achieves complex geometries beyond traditional manufacturing limits while accelerating project timelines through automated, digital modeling-to-production cycles. Additionally, 3DP minimizes waste and improves sustainability in material use, addressing both environmental and cost concerns.
3.2.2. Case Studies and Key Innovations
Many recent studies have explored the practical and technical advantages of 3D printing in FM construction projects. To illustrate these advances, Table 2 presents a selection of prominent case studies, specifying the processes, materials used, outcomes, and key findings documented in recent research.
Table 2.
Construction Applications Summary.
3.2.3. Comparative Evaluation
Comprehensive reviews of these innovations show consistent improvements in speed, adaptability, and environmental footprint across construction scenarios, positioning 3DP as a cost-effective and sustainable upgrade for FM projects.
3.3. Supply Chain Management (SCM)
3.3.1. Role and Advantages
Integration of 3DP into FM’s supply chain dramatically changes spare parts logistics, inventory practices, and vendor reliance []. Building on this, Ryan et al. [] outlined strategic scenarios demonstrating how additive manufacturing could restructure supply chains, while Scott and Harrison [] provided an early end-to-end framing of AM within supply chain settings, highlighting both the potential to reduce lead times and inventories and the challenges of coordination and standardization.
These transformative changes manifest in three key areas. On-demand, localized production reduces downtime and transportation costs by eliminating the need for extensive warehousing and long-distance shipping of components. Just-in-time inventory models cut storage costs and avoid obsolescence issues that plague traditional spare parts management, where items may sit unused for years before becoming outdated. Additionally, customization at point-of-use increases organizational agility in emergency situations or unique asset scenarios, allowing facility managers to respond rapidly to unexpected maintenance needs without waiting for specialized parts procurement.
3.3.2. Sectoral Examples
The following Table 3 presents a comprehensive summary of notable case studies and research highlighting how 3D printing is transforming supply chain practices within facilities management, including specific processes, impacted areas, and key outcomes.
Table 3.
Supply Chain Management Applications Summary.
3.3.3. Synthesis
Empirical evidence demonstrates substantial SCM efficiency gains, with early adopters reporting improved asset availability and resilience to supply shocks, benefits especially critical for FM in remote or mission-critical facilities. At the operational level, Eyers et al. [] further demonstrated that industrial AM systems enhance flexibility and responsiveness, enabling agile production of spare parts while requiring new integration metrics. Recent systematic reviews consolidate evidence from over 70 studies, confirming that AM significantly reduces lead times, lowers inventory costs, and enhances resilience in spare parts management, while also identifying ongoing challenges around material quality, regulatory frameworks, and lifecycle sustainability [].
3.4. Maintenance and Repairs
3.4.1. Role and Advantages
3DP revolutionizes FM maintenance by providing:
- Rapid prototyping and replacement for bespoke or obsolete parts.
- Localized, in situ repair, critical for minimizing downtime in essential services.
- Environmental improvements by reducing resource needs for replacement cycles.
3.4.2. Cases and Results
The Table 4 below details significant studies and practical implementations of 3D printing in facilities maintenance and repair, outlining specific technologies, application areas, and demonstrated benefits for operational efficiency.
Table 4.
Maintenance and Repair Applications Summary.
Table 4.
Maintenance and Repair Applications Summary.
| Sr. No. | Researcher | 3DP Process | M&R Specific Area | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wits et al. [] | Different AM processes | Optimization of MRO | AM enables rapid customization and replacement of parts, reducing dependency on external suppliers and enhancing facility operational efficiency. |
| 2 | Kim et al. [] | Metal AM with steel material | On-site maintenance of gaskets and O-rings using 3DP | Proposal of a part library-based information retrieval and inspection framework to support the maintenance of damaged gaskets and O-rings, validated through prototype systems |
| 3 | Kim et al. [] | Metal AM SCS13 material | On-site repair of partially damaged parts (Ball) using 3DP technology | Proposal of a user-friendly maintenance framework including a parts catalog, automated part identification, and shape comparison for validating repairs, demonstrated with a damaged ball from a valve. |
| 4 | Yeon [] | Concrete 3DP | Application of 3DP technology for spall repair | Proposal and environmental assessment of 3DP spall repair method as a more sustainable and efficient alternative to traditional partial-depth repair method |
| 5 | Nicolau [] | FDM | Furniture manufacturing | 3DP connectors enhance furniture assembly efficiency and customization, offering significant benefits for FM |
| 6 | Lastra et al. [] | Various AM processes | Preventive maintenance spare parts | Demonstrated improved maintenance strategies through AM-produced spare parts, reducing downtime and inventory costs while extending equipment lifecycles. |
| 7 | Infrastructure case study [] | FDM/SLA | Rapid infrastructure maintenance | Real-world application showing 3DP enabling faster repair responses, particularly beneficial for remote locations and critical infrastructure systems |
| 8 | Alzahmi, Shamayleh & Stefancich [] | Various AM technologies (systematic review) | Spare parts management (multi-sector synthesis) | Consolidated evidence across 77 studies shows AM reduces lead times, costs, and inventory, while enhancing flexibility and resilience. Identifies gaps in sustainability, quality control, and regulatory frameworks. |
3.4.3. Implementation Gaps
Challenges persist in quality assurance, regulatory compliance, digital skill needs, and harmonization of CAD libraries for FM.
3.5. Summary Chart
The bar chart (Figure 9) below visualizes the distribution of major application examples by FM sector, highlighting research and implementation density.
Figure 9.
Frequency of 3D Printing Application Examples by Facilities Management Area in This Review Paper.
These results collectively affirm the broadening role of 3DP within FM as a driver of innovation, operational resilience, and sustainability. Empirical impacts span cost, resource use, and supply chain agility, while sector-specific challenges shape the path toward full realization of 3DP benefits.
The preceding analyses have highlighted the targeted implementation of 3DP across construction, supply chain, and maintenance & repair within facilities management. However, the versatility of 3D printing extends across an even broader array of facility types and operational needs. Table 5 consolidates diverse, real-world applications of 3DP documented in the literature, spanning manufacturing plants, healthcare, education, campus maintenance, and more. This synthesis underscores 3DP’s potential not only to address domain-specific challenges, but also to deliver tailored, on-demand solutions across the entire spectrum of FM practices.
Recent studies demonstrate 3DP’s versatility across sectors. For instance, one of the recent studies demonstrated that 3D-printed PLA and carbon fiber-reinforced PLA parts show varying wear performance based on infill rates and water absorption [], highlighting material considerations for FM applications. New systematic reviews emphasize that continuous fiber reinforcement in 3D-printed polymers can dramatically improve mechanical properties, including tensile strength and durability [], which is especially significant for lightweight structural components in FM environments. Rapid advances in additive manufacturing now enable tailored design and energy-efficient production of carbon fiber-reinforced composites, with scalable methods that reduce curing energy and enhance out-of-plane fiber orientation for improved wear characteristics []. Further developments in sustainable and hybrid fiber systems expand material options beyond PLA and pure carbon fiber, offering cost-performance balance for facility maintenance needs, though ongoing research highlights challenges in balancing cost, complexity, and long-term outdoor durability [].
Table 5.
Other Typical Applications of 3D Printing Across Various Facilities.
Table 5.
Other Typical Applications of 3D Printing Across Various Facilities.
| Facility Type | 3D Printed Part | Purpose and Description | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturing Plants | Custom Tooling and Fixtures | Parts are tailored for specific manufacturing processes or tasks, highlighting the adaptability of 3D printing. | [,] |
| Prototypes | Rapidly created models for testing and validation before mass production crucial for product development. | [,] | |
| Replacement Parts | Components are no longer in production and are costly to store, so they are essential for machinery or vehicle maintenance. | [] | |
| Personalized Components | Highly customized parts such as ergonomic handles or interfaces demonstrate 3D printing’s customization scope. | [,] | |
| Medical Facilities | Biomedical Implants and Prosthetics | Tailored to individual patient needs, including custom implants and prosthetic devices. | [,] |
| Architectural Firms | Architectural Models | Detailed models of buildings for planning and client presentations, aiding in visualization and planning. | [] |
| Educational Institutions (Research/Arts & Design) | Educational Models | Scaled or abstracted models, such as anatomical models, are used in schools or universities for educational purposes. | [,] |
| Custom Laboratory Equipment | Tailored components for experiments such as custom Petri dishes, microscope parts, or fluidic channels. | [] | |
| Robotics Components | Custom parts for student projects or research in robotics, including gears casings and structural elements. | [] | |
| Engineering Prototypes | Functional prototypes for projects like vehicle parts, drones, or renewable energy solutions. | [] | |
| Art and Design Projects | Custom sculptures jewelry or architectural models for student projects showcasing artistic applications. | [] | |
| Theater and Film Props | Custom props for university productions ranging from historical replicas to fantastical objects. | ||
| Campus Infrastructure Parts | Small replacement parts such as custom fittings, brackets, glide components of the floor box cover, or different coverings/skirtings are needed to maintain campus facilities. | [] | |
| Desk and Chair Components | Durable parts like chair arms, arm pads, and desk legs are often replaced due to breakage or wear. | [] | |
| Shelving Brackets and Supports | Custom supports for heavy loads are especially useful in libraries or labs. | [] | |
| Campus Maintenance | Handle and Knob Replacements | Replacements for broken handles and knobs on doors, drawers, and cabinets throughout campus buildings. | |
| Custom Light Fixture Parts | Unique components for light fixtures in specific areas or older buildings where replacements are hard to find. | [] | |
| Equipment Mounts and Housing | Parts to mount or house various equipment in labs, such as camera mounts, projector housings, or computer stands. | [] | |
| Decorative Elements | Custom elements to enhance the aesthetics of campus spaces or for specific events. | [] | |
| Lab Fixture Components | Specific parts like clamps, stands, or holders are tailored for various laboratory setups. | [] | |
| Chair Wheel/Caster | A tiny wheeled device is attached to the bottom of the chair legs for more effortless movement. | [,] | |
| Drawer Handles | Handles attached to drawers for opening and closing. | [] |
4. Discussions
This section critically analyzes the synthesized findings to identify patterns, barriers, and opportunities for 3D printing adoption FM. The discussion integrates cross-domain insights, stakeholder perspectives, and strategic implications while positioning findings within broader technological and industry trends. The analysis concludes with a framework for future research priorities and practical implementation guidance.
4.1. Synthesis of Findings
4.1.1. Sectoral Impact of 3D Printing in Facilities Management
The systematic review demonstrates that Three-Dimensional Printing (3DP) is reshaping the operational landscape of Facilities Management (FM) by enabling cost-effective, rapid, and sustainable solutions across construction, maintenance, and supply chain domains.
Evidence in construction projects highlights massive improvements in lead times, waste reduction, and design flexibility, especially in complex environments where traditional techniques fall short. 3DP’s ability to fabricate advanced, purpose-specific components accelerates project delivery and cost savings, with environmental benefits through reduced resource use and transportation.
In supply chain management, decentralized, just-in-time manufacturing enabled by 3DP substantially lowers inventory and logistics costs, and allows FM practitioners to respond swiftly to unexpected delays or procurement challenges. Industry examples—from aerospace spare parts to retail and even mission-critical space station tools—illustrate the transformative impact of distributed 3DP systems.
Maintenance and repair operations benefit from rapid prototyping, reduced downtime, and greater control over part customization and quality. Facility teams have demonstrated the practical value of part libraries, CAD model repositories, and streamlined replacement workflows that bypass legacy supply chains.
4.1.2. Barriers and Bottlenecks in Implementation
Despite demonstrated advantages, several challenges impede optimal adoption across FM sectors:
- Economic and Practical Feasibility: Cost–benefit assessments remain context-dependent; initial investments in hardware, training, and digital infrastructure may be substantial.
- Standardization and Quality Assurance: There is a lack of universally accepted quality protocols or certification paths for 3D-printed building components, especially in regulated FM environments [,,,,].
- Skills and Workforce Readiness: Implementing 3DP requires upskilling FM staff in digital design, printer operation, data management, and troubleshooting—an undertaking that can slow execution or create resistance [,].
- Integration with Digital Ecosystems: Linking 3DP with BIM, IoT, and digital twins offers added value but demands robust interoperability and harmonized data standards [,].
- Regulatory and Safety Concerns: Compliance with industry, health, and safety standards lags behind technical advances; regulatory reform is needed for broad deployment, especially in healthcare and mission-critical infrastructures [].
A nuanced understanding of stakeholder perspectives is essential for anticipating organizational barriers and drivers in 3DP adoption for FM. Table 6 summarizes the primary opportunities, concerns, and operational needs identified across FM’s key stakeholder groups.
Table 6.
Various stakeholders’ perspectives.
- Overcoming these barriers will require focused research, sector-specific pilot projects, workforce upskilling, and development of evidence-based decision-making frameworks, as highlighted in both the previous gaps section and throughout this review.
4.1.3. Synthesis with Broader Industry Trends
Current FM discourse emphasizes smart, sustainable, and resilient building operations. 3DP aligns directly with these imperatives, providing facilities with adaptive capacity in quickly evolving contexts—post-pandemic workspace transformation, circular economy goals, and shifting user demands. However, full realization of 3DP’s potential depends on bridging research gaps around sector-specific cost modeling and benchmarking, comparative analyses between traditional and 3DP-enabled FM practices, and standardization efforts with demonstration projects integrating BIM and digital twin platforms. Table 7 summarizes these key challenges alongside corresponding future research directions and actionable steps needed to advance 3DP integration in FM.
Table 7.
Key Challenges and Future Directions.
4.1.4. Limitations of Current Literature
The review identifies several limitations in existing literature. Current research focuses predominantly on proof-of-concept and case studies, with fewer large-scale empirical trials. Research on long-term sustainability and lifecycle impacts remains sparse, and there is limited crossover between FM and advanced digital manufacturing literature. Future research should address these gaps by focusing on empirical validation of economic, social, and environmental benefits.
4.1.5. Strategic Recommendations
Strategic implementation of 3DP in FM requires focused investment in cross-sector demonstration projects that build evidence and best practices at every stage, from design to operation. Success depends on fostering collaborative partnerships among industry, academia, regulators, and technology vendors to accelerate skill-building and regulatory alignment. Organizations must prioritize digital integration to ensure seamless connectivity between 3DP assets, BIM, and data-driven management systems for real-time optimization. Advancing policy and certification frameworks through collaboration with authorities will establish necessary inspection protocols and certifications for FM-specific applications. These synthesized insights lay the groundwork for practical action and scholarly advancement, positioning FM to take full advantage of 3DP innovation in pursuit of smarter, more resilient, and sustainable facilities.
4.2. Identified Research Gaps
This review reveals critical knowledge gaps limiting systematic 3DP adoption in FM. These encompass decision-support frameworks, economic validation, digital integration, standardization protocols, and workforce development. Addressing these limitations requires targeted research initiatives detailed in Section 5.
- Lack of practical, science-based decision frameworks: There is no validated, operational model to help FM professionals systematically determine when and how to adopt 3DP over traditional methods, hindering evidence-based implementation and scaling.
- Limited economic and real-world feasibility studies: Few comprehensive cost–benefit analyses or longitudinal studies exist to quantify the long-term operational, financial, and sustainability impacts of 3DP integration in FM contexts. While recent studies have begun examining economic feasibility across different organizational scales [], strategic cost–benefit frameworks for supply chain applications [], and maturity models for systematic adoption [], FM-specific economic assessments remain sparse and fragmented.
- Underexplored integration with digital FM tools: Empirical evidence and best-practice guidelines for seamless interoperability between 3DP and platforms such as BIM, IoT, and digital twins are still underdeveloped, creating barriers to digital FM transformation.
- Sector-specific barriers to standardization and certification: The establishment of industry-wide quality, safety, and regulatory standards for 3D-printed components in FM remains an unresolved challenge, especially for critical infrastructure and public-sector buildings.
- Workforce readiness and upskilling gaps: Systematic approaches for building digital and technical skills among FM staff, including hands-on training for 3DP operation and integration—are scarce, impeding broad-based adoption.
Addressing these gaps will require interdisciplinary research, pilot projects, and policy support to enable systematic, scalable, and resilient adoption of 3DP in facilities management.
4.3. Comparative Synthesis by FM Area
As reflected in Table 8, most empirical and case-based evidence of 3D printing in FM is concentrated in the construction domain, while the published literature addressing maintenance, repair, and supply chain applications remains limited in volume, scope, and methodological rigor. In these latter areas, available studies are typically exploratory, conceptual, or based on isolated pilot projects rather than large-scale or longitudinal analyses.
Table 8.
Summary of 3D printing benefits, challenges, and evidence strength across FM domains.
Table 8.
Summary of 3D printing benefits, challenges, and evidence strength across FM domains.
| FM Application | Key Benefits | Challenges/Barriers | Evidence Strength |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction | Complex geometries, reduced timelines [] | Upfront CAPEX, standards, scalability [] | Moderate |
| Maintenance/Repair | Downtime reduction, on-demand parts [,] | Skills, part libraries, regulatory gaps [] | Moderate |
| Supply Chain | Localized production, lower inventory, Reduced Lead times [,,] | Integration, cost, industry uptake [,] | Moderate |
| Furniture/Interior | Customization, improved repairs, Reduced Lead times [,] | Limited adoption, standards, tooling [] | Limited/Emerging |
Cross-domain analysis reveals systematic variations in both research focus and evidence maturity. Across all domains, studies consistently demonstrate 3DP’s strength in rapid, customized part production, particularly evident in maintenance scenarios, while facing recurring limitations in material standardization and large-scale cost-effectiveness. Construction studies prioritize complex geometries and reduced timelines as key benefits, with challenges centered on upfront CAPEX, standards, and scalability, reflecting the sector’s focus on large-scale implementation. Conversely, maintenance/repair applications emphasize downtime reduction and on-demand availability, with barriers concentrated on skills, part libraries, and regulatory gaps, indicating a more operational, reactive focus. Supply chain applications target localized production and inventory optimization, facing challenges of integration complexity and cost modeling, suggesting strategic, system-level considerations. Notably, furniture/interior applications show customization benefits but face adoption and standards barriers, representing the most nascent evidence base.
These domain-specific patterns expose critical evidence contrasts that explain field heterogeneity. All domains demonstrate only moderate evidence strength, yet this uniformity masks important qualitative differences: construction research provides detailed material performance data but lacks service validation; maintenance studies offer operational case evidence but remain site-specific; supply chain analyses present comprehensive scenario modeling but vary substantially in cost assumptions; while furniture/interior research remains largely conceptual with limited empirical validation.
The convergence on ‘moderate’ evidence strength across domains reveals a fundamental research gap: while each area shows promise, none has achieved the robust, longitudinal validation needed for confident scaled adoption. This explains why FM adoption should be decision-framework-driven rather than technology-led; the evidence base requires systematic integration across domains rather than isolated technological advancement. The novelty of this review lies in exposing these cross-domain evidence patterns and their implications for strategic FM implementation.
4.4. Comparative Cost–Benefit Insights of 3DP Applications in FM
Table 6, in Section 4, reveals that stakeholder concerns about 3DP adoption center on economic justification and return on investment. To address these practical considerations, Table 9 consolidates quantified benefits and costs from empirical studies to guide implementation decisions.
Table 9.
Comprehensive Cost–Benefit Analysis of 3D Printing in FM.
Table 9.
Comprehensive Cost–Benefit Analysis of 3D Printing in FM.
| FM Domain | Application/Case Study | Reported Benefits | Reported Costs/Barriers | Quantified Value | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Construction | CSA Cement Binder Jetting | Rapid prototype structures | High material cost; scalability concerns | Compressive strength 5.9–6.7 MPa | [] |
| Construction | Inkjet Cement Mix | Durability improvements | High printer setup cost | Compressive strength 8.26 MPa; 49% porosity reduction | [] |
| Sand Casting | Foundry Operations | Complex geometries, rapid production | Equipment CAPEX | 75% Cost reduction ($3960 → $990/batch) | [] |
| Medical Models | Surgery Planning | Reduced operating time | Setup and training costs | $1500–3700 saved/case; 62 min time savings | [] |
| Supply Chain | Spare Parts (Aerospace) | Lead time reduction weeks → hours; fleet readiness | Machine automation costs; limited throughput | Annual savings $97,900/year | [,] |
| Supply Chain | Space Operations (NASA/ISS) | On-demand tool fabrication in orbit | Transportation of AM hardware to space | Eliminated Earth resupply dependency | [] |
| Maintenance | Spall Repair (Concrete 3DP | Faster repairs, reduced waste, eco-friendly | Regulatory approval pending | 30–60% inventory cost savings | [,,] |
| Maintenance | Metal AM Gaskets/O-Rings | Avoided downtime, extended component life | Requires CAD libraries; technical skills | On-demand fulfillment (hours vs. weeks) | [,] |
As illustrated, the greatest cost savings and efficiency gains are realized in maintenance, spare part logistics, and situations demanding rapid custom solutions, all of which are directly impacted by the cost factors described above.
4.5. Implications for Policy and Practice
Understanding the practical and policy implications of 3D printing adoption in facilities management is critical for stakeholders aiming to foster smarter, more sustainable building operations. Based on the synthesized evidence and persistent gaps identified in this review, key recommendations emerge: FM leaders are encouraged to implement small-scale, high-value pilot projects to demonstrate measurable return on investment; organizations should invest in continuous workforce upskilling and digital literacy to support practical integration; collaboration between industry bodies and regulatory agencies is needed to expedite the development of robust quality and certification standards; and prioritizing interoperability between digital tools, such as BIM and IoT platforms, should be integral from the outset of implementation. Collectively, these actions can accelerate effective and scalable adoption of 3D printing technologies within the FM sector.
4.6. Limitations of the Review
As with any systematic review, this synthesis faces notable methodological and contextual limitations that readers should carefully consider.
Literature Base Constraints: Despite screening 179 studies, most were case studies, proof-of-concept demonstrations, or small-scale pilots rather than large-scale, rigorous empirical trials. This constraint limits our ability to generalize about long-term cost-effectiveness, comparative performance, or scalability to organization-wide adoption.
Methodological Limitations: The review includes only peer-reviewed, English-language publications from major databases, potentially overlooking relevant industry reports, technical documentation, and regional (non-English) scholarship. Considerable methodological heterogeneity, including differences in facility types, outcome measures, and 3DP technologies, precluded meta-analysis, resulting in a thematic synthesis reliant on subjective interpretation.
Economic Evidence Gaps: Although Table 9 presents available cost–benefit data, most economic claims in the literature lack rigorous lifecycle analysis, standardized evaluation metrics, or independent validation. Results often hinge on unique contexts or facility characteristics, constraining generalizability.
Publication Bias and Optimism: Published studies likely overrepresent successes and underreport failed or problematic implementations. As is common in this research area, the literature may thus reflect a more optimistic appraisal of 3DP’s FM potential than warranted by broader experience.
Geographic and Temporal Limitations: The majority of studies are from developed economies between 2015–2024, providing uneven geographic representation and limited longitudinal insight into long-term 3DP performance and organizational change.
Framework Validation: The review’s proposed decision-support framework (Figure 9) remains theoretical, lacking empirical validation through real-world case implementation.
These limitations do not negate the value of this review, but findings should be interpreted as preliminary evidence supporting pilot programs and targeted research rather than definitive guidance for industry-wide applications. Organizations are advised to pursue phased adoption, robust evaluation, and local feasibility assessments. The limitations highlighted here reinforce the importance of the future research agenda outlined in Section 5 to advance the maturity and empirical foundation of 3DP in facilities management.
5. Future Scope and Evolution
This section translates the identified research gaps and implementation barriers into actionable priorities for future investigation. The discussion presents both near-term research directions and a practical decision framework to guide facility managers in evaluating 3D printing adoption strategies. These recommendations provide a roadmap for advancing evidence-based integration of 3D printing technologies in FM practice.
The following strategic research agenda emerges from the identified gaps in current research and practice.
5.1. Development and Empirical Testing of FM-Specific Decision-Support Frameworks
Research should advance multi-criteria, science-based models that provide FM professionals with quantifiable criteria and validated workflows to determine when, where, and how to implement 3DP versus traditional approaches. Frameworks must be constructed using detailed operational data and piloted in real FM scenarios, with validation across diverse facility types and scales.
5.2. Comprehensive Techno-Economic and Longitudinal Assessments
Priority should be given to longitudinal studies that systematically quantify direct and indirect operational, sustainability, and economic outcomes of 3DP adoption across distinct FM settings (e.g., education, health care, municipal infrastructure). These studies must compare 3DP interventions with incumbent practices, revealing context-specific performance limits and cost structures.
5.3. Standardization, Certification, and Regulatory Adaptation for FM-Embedded 3DP
There is an urgent need for sector-driven investigations into the performance, safety, and durability of 3D-printed components deployed in FM contexts. Research should partner with standard bodies to define, test, and refine certification processes relevant to critical facility systems, accounting for both material and application-specific variability.
5.4. Workforce Upskilling and Targeted Educational Program Design
Methodologically robust interventions should be piloted to assess the most effective ways to elevate the technical and digital competencies of FM professionals in 3DP operation, design, and troubleshooting. Mixed-method evaluations should measure impacts on adoption, efficacy, and error reduction across facility environments.
5.5. Digital Integration with Core FM Platforms
Research should develop, implement, and empirically evaluate protocols for seamless data and workflow integration between 3DP and digital FM platforms (such as BIM and digital twins), including automated component specification and real-world validation through facility-based trials.
Focused pursuit of these research priorities—anchored in FM’s operational realities—will directly address persistent limitations, create a foundation for evidence-based best practice, and catalyze robust, scalable, and sustainable 3DP deployment across the facilities management sector.
5.6. Conceptual Decision Framework for 3DP Adoption in FM
Before FM organizations decide to adopt 3D printing, several essential questions must be systematically addressed to ensure fit, feasibility, and value. The decision flowchart in Figure 10 distills these considerations into an actionable sequence for facilities managers:
Figure 10.
Conceptual Decision Framework for Adoption of 3D Printing in FM.
- Is the part or component adapted, or at risk of supply chain delay?
- Does the organization have sufficient in-house technical or digital expertise, or access to qualified partners?
- Are relevant regulatory or organizational standards met or achievable?
- Is there a strong business case in terms of cost, sustainability, or operational resilience?
This structured approach provides practical guidance for FM professionals to evaluate when and how 3DP solutions should be integrated into their operations, ultimately supporting more strategic, evidence-based technology adoption decisions. Key evaluation criteria include assessing business case support through cost analysis, sustainability benefits, and operational resilience improvements.
6. Conclusions
Three-dimensional printing (3DP) presents transformative promise for facilities management (FM), offering enhanced operational responsiveness, asset customization, and sustainable building lifecycle management. This systematic review of 179 studies demonstrates quantified benefits including inventory cost reductions of 30–60%, production cost decreases up to 75% for complex geometries, and lead time reductions from weeks to hours for spare parts applications.
Cross-domain analysis reveals that successful 3DP integration depends on organizational readiness and systematic decision-making frameworks rather than purely technological considerations. Construction applications show strong technical validation but face scalability challenges, while supply chain applications demonstrate clear economic benefits on-demand production and maintenance applications require comprehensive organizational change management.
Three primary barriers constrain mainstream adoption: absence of validated and systematic decision-support frameworks, insufficient standardization protocols, and limited workforce preparation for digital manufacturing adoption. These challenges often result in isolated pilot projects rather than systematic organizational transformation.
This systematic review provides the first comprehensive, domain-specific analysis of 3DP in FM contexts, establishing baseline evidence for future studies. The identified research gaps and proposed decision framework offer concrete directions for academic investigation and industry implementation. Realizing 3DP’s full value in FM requires deliberate, evidence-driven approaches to integration, regulation, and workforce development to position FM for greater efficiency and leadership in smart, sustainable built environments.
Supplementary Materials
The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/buildings15234231/s1, The PRISMA 2020 Checklist for Systematic Reviews is available as Supplementary Material.
Author Contributions
M.T.A.: Conceived the research idea, designed the methodology, conducted the analysis, wrote the original draft and revisions. S.A.K.: Reviewed the manuscript, methodology, analysis and research administrator, provided necessary support throughout the research process. M.K.: Supervised the entire work, provided advisory guidance, and reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable. This is a review article and does not present new experimental data. However, the literature search strategies, selection criteria, and data extraction forms used in this review are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Chotipanich, S. Positioning facility management. Facilities 2004, 22, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alfalah, G.; Zayed, T. A review of sustainable facility management research. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 55, 102073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaw, C.; Pereira, F.d.A.; McNally, C.; O’donnell, J. Facilities management domain review: Potential contributions towards digitalisation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computing in Construction, Online, 26–28 July 2021; pp. 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strategic Facilities Management Framework. Available online: https://www.rics.org/profession-standards/rics-standards-and-guidance/sector-standards/real-estate-standards/strategic-facilities-management-framework (accessed on 31 October 2024).
- Adapting, Evolving, Leading: A Resilient Approach to Modern Facility Management. MEFMA. Available online: https://mefma.org/adapting-evolving-leading-a-resilient-approach-to-modern-facility-management/ (accessed on 30 August 2025).
- Alrubaidi, M. Evaluating the Effects of Digital Transformation on Facilities Management Projects in Saudi Arabia: Overcoming Challenges and Seizing Opportunities. Open J. Civ. Eng. 2024, 14, 536–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moshood, T.D.; Rotimi, J.O.; Shahzad, W.; Bamgbade, J.A. Infrastructure digital twin technology: A new paradigm for future construction industry. Technol. Soc. 2024, 77, 102519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rynk, R.; Koerting, N.; Ziegenbein, J.; Hardin, J.; Oshins, C.; Brown, N.J.; Lilkas-Rain, D. Facility management. In The Composting Handbook; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; Available online: https://compostfoundation.org/composting-handbook/ (accessed on 25 August 2025).
- ISO 41011:2024(en); Facility Management—Vocabulary. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2024. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:41011:ed-2:v1:en (accessed on 28 October 2024).
- What Is Facility Management? Available online: https://www.ifma.org/about/what-is-fm/ (accessed on 28 October 2024).
- Wang, T.; Ali, A.S.; Au-Yong, C.P. Exploring a body of knowledge for promoting the building information model for facility management. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2022, 13, 101717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinti, L.; Codinhoto, R.; Bonelli, S. A Review of Building Information Modelling (BIM) for Facility Management (FM): Implementation in Public Organisations. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atkin, B.; Bildsten, L. A future for facility management. Constr. Innov. 2017, 17, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atta, N.; Talamo, C. Digital transformation in facility management (FM). IoT and big data for service innovation. In Digital Transformation of the Design, Construction and Management Processes of the Built Environment; Research for Development; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Motamedi, A.; Hammad, A.; Asen, Y. Knowledge-assisted BIM-based visual analytics for failure root cause detection in facilities management. Autom. Constr. 2014, 43, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dehghanghadikolaei, A.; Emamian, S.S.; Fotovvati, B.; Gisario, A.; Mehrpouya, M.; Vosooghnia, A. The potential of additive manufacturing in the smart factory industrial 4.0: A review. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hilal, M.; Maqsood, T.; Abdekhodaee, A. A hybrid conceptual model for BIM in FM. Constr. Innov. 2019, 19, 531–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngo, T.D.; Kashani, A.; Imbalzano, G.; Nguyen, K.T.Q.; Hui, D. Additive manufacturing (3D printing): A review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos. B Eng. 2018, 143, 172–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iftekar, S.F.; Aabid, A.; Amir, A.; Baig, M. Advancements and Limitations in 3D Printing Materials and Technologies: A Critical Review. Polymers 2023, 15, 2519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kafle, A.; Luis, E.; Silwal, R.; Pan, H.M.; Shrestha, P.L.; Bastola, A.K. 3D/4D Printing of Polymers: Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM), Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), and Stereolithography (SLA). Polymers 2021, 13, 3101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kanishka, K.; Acherjee, B. Revolutionizing manufacturing: A comprehensive overview of additive manufacturing processes, materials, developments, and challenges. J. Manuf. Process 2023, 107, 574–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, J.; Ng, W.L.; An, J.; Yeong, W.Y.; Chua, C.K.; Sing, S.L. Achieving sustainability by additive manufacturing: A state-of-the-art review and perspectives. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2024, 19, e2438899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bozkurt, Y.; Karayel, E. 3D printing technology; methods, biomedical applications, future opportunities and trends. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2021, 14, 1430–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Sousa Alves, B.A.; Kontziampasis, D.; Soliman, A.H. The Quest for the Holy Grail Of 3D Printing: A Critical Review of Recycling in Polymer Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing. Polymers 2024, 16, 2306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaidya, R.; Anand, S. Image Processing Assisted Tools for Pre- and Post-processing Operations in Additive Manufacturing. Procedia Manuf. 2016, 5, 958–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dörfler, K.; Dielemans, G.; Leutenegger, S.; Jenny, S.E.; Pankert, J.; Sustarevas, J.; Lachmayer, L.; Raatz, A.; Lowke, D. Advancing construction in existing contexts: Prospects and barriers of 3d printing with mobile robots for building maintenance and repair. Cem. Concr. Res. 2024, 186, 107656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Digital Skills: How Employers Can Respond to Future Demand. World Economic Forum. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/11/digital-skills-labour-market-future/ (accessed on 31 August 2025).
- Tofail, S.A.M.; Koumoulos, E.P.; Bandyopadhyay, A.; Bose, S.; O’Donoghue, L.; Charitidis, C. Additive manufacturing: Scientific and technological challenges, market uptake and opportunities. Mater. Today 2018, 21, 22–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manufacturing Study Shows Both Growth and Looming Talent Gap. Manufacturing News Desk|Advancedmanufacturing.org. Available online: https://www.advancedmanufacturing.org/news-desk/study-amid-growth-a-looming-gap-of-manufacturing-talent/article_d5ac43ac-fe7b-11ee-8e9f-dfc9469f7ff2.html (accessed on 31 August 2025).
- Rios, L.M.H.; Campaña, W.; Orobio, A. Insights into the Convergence of Bim and 3D Printing in Construction. Heliyon 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ivkić, I.; Buhmann, T.; List, B. A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Additive Manufacturing as a Service. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science CLOSER, Porto, Portugal, 1–3 April 2025; pp. 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ultimaker. 3D Printing: The Total Cost of Ownership; Ultimaker: Utrecht, The Netherland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Thomas, D.S.; Gilbert, S.W. Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Additive Manufacturing; National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahrubudin, N.; Koshy, P.; Alipal, J.; Kadir, M.H.A.; Lee, T.C. Challenges of 3D printing technology for manufacturing biomedical products: A case study of Malaysian manufacturing firms. Heliyon 2020, 6, e03734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shakor, P.; Nejadi, S.; Paul, G.; Malek, S. Review of emerging additive manufacturing technologies in 3d printing of cementitious materials in the construction industry. Front. Built Environ. 2019, 4, 427880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingaglio, J.; Fox, J.; Naito, C.J.; Bocchini, P. Material characteristics of binder jet 3D printed hydrated CSA cement with the addition of fine aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 206, 494–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.; Cha, M.; Kim, B.C.; Kim, T.; Mun, D. Part library-based information retrieval and inspection framework to support part maintenance using 3D printing technology. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2019, 25, 630–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.; Cha, M.; Kim, B.C.; Lee, I.; Mun, D. Maintenance framework for repairing partially damaged parts using 3D printing. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 2019, 20, 1451–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khajavi, S.H.; Partanen, J.; Holmström, J. Additive manufacturing in the spare parts supply chain. Comput. Ind. 2014, 65, 50–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeon, J.; Rew, Y.; Choi, K.; Kang, J. Environmental Effects of Accelerated Pavement Repair Using 3D Printing: Life Cycle Assessment Approach. J. Manag. Eng. 2020, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicolau, A.; Pop, M.A.; Coșereanu, C. 3D printing application in wood furniture components assembling. Materials 2022, 15, 2907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shakor, P.; Sanjayan, J.; Nazari, A.; Nejadi, S. Modified 3D printed powder to cement-based material and mechanical properties of cement scaffold used in 3D printing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 138, 398–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Mahdy, D.; Gabr, H.S.; Abdelmohsen, S. SaltBlock as a 3D printed sustainable construction material in hot arid climates. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 43, 103134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keating, S.; Oxman, N. Compound fabrication: A multi-functional robotic platform for digital design and fabrication. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2013, 29, 439–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furet, B.; Poullain, P.; Garnier, S. 3D printing for construction based on a complex wall of polymer-foam and concrete. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 28, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lublasser, E.; Adams, T.; Vollpracht, A.; Brell-Cokcan, S. Robotic application of foam concrete onto bare wall elements-Analysis concept and robotic experiments. Autom. Constr. 2018, 89, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mechtcherine, V.; Nerella, V.N.; Will, F.; Näther, M.; Otto, J.; Krause, M. Large-scale digital concrete construction–CONPrint3D concept for on-site, monolithic 3D-printing. Autom. Constr. 2019, 107, 102933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Xiao, B.; Fang, Z.; Xiong, Z.; Chu, S.; Kwan, A. Feasibility of glass/basalt fiber reinforced seawater coral sand mortar for 3D printing. Addit. Manuf. 2021, 37, 101684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le, T.T.; Austin, S.A.; Lim, S.; Buswell, R.A.; Gibb, A.G.F.; Thorpe, T. Mix design and fresh properties for high-performance printing concrete. Mater. Struct. Mater. Constr. 2012, 45, 1221–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corsini, L.; Aranda-Jan, C.B.; Moultrie, J. The impact of 3D printing on the humanitarian supply chain. Prod. Plan. Control 2022, 33, 692–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacDonald, E.; Wicker, R. Multiprocess 3D printing for increasing component functionality. Science 2016, 353, aaf2093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, A.; Harrison, T.P. Additive manufacturing in an end-to-end supply chain setting. 3D Print. Addit. Manuf. 2015, 2, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, F.; Wang, X.; Mustafee, N.; Hao, L. Investigating the feasibility of supply chain-centric business models in 3D chocolate printing: A simulation study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2016, 102, 202–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harbaugh, J. Space Station 3-D Printer Builds Ratchet Wrench to Complete First Phase of Operations. NASA. 2017. Available online: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/3Dratchet_wrench (accessed on 25 August 2025).
- Knofius, N.; van der Heijden, M.C.; Zijm, W.H.M. Moving to additive manufacturing for spare parts supply. Comput. Ind. 2019, 113, 103134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirichakwal, I.; Conner, B. Implications of Additive Manufacturing for Spare Parts Inventory. 3D Print. Addit. Manuf. 2016, 3, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, M.J.; Eyers, D.R.; Potter, A.T.; Purvis, L.; Gosling, J. 3D printing the future: Scenarios for supply chains reviewed. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2017, 47, 992–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mecheter, A.; Pokharel, S.; Tarlochan, F. Additive Manufacturing Technology for Spare Parts Application: A Systematic Review on Supply Chain Management. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feldmann, C.; Pumpe, A. A holistic decision framework for 3D printing investments in global supply chains. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 25, 677–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eyers, D.R.; Potter, A.T.; Gosling, J.; Naim, M.M. The flexibility of industrial additive manufacturing systems. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2018, 38, 2313–2343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alzahmi, W.; Shamayleh, A.; Stefancich, M. The Role of Additive Manufacturing in Spare Parts Management: A Systematic Review. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2025, 27, 101029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wits, W.W.; García, J.R.R.; Becker, J.M.J. How additive manufacturing enables more sustainable end-user maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) strategies. Procedia CIRP 2016, 40, 693–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lastra, R.; Pereira, A.; Díaz-Cacho, M.; Acevedo, J.; Collazo, A. Spare Parts Made by Additive Manufacturing to Improve Preventive Maintenance. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 3D Printing for Rapid Maintenance. Available online: https://www.gihub.org/infrastructure-technology-use-cases/case-studies/3d-printing-for-rapid-maintenance/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 30 August 2025).
- Ergene, B.; İnci, Y.E.; Çetintaş, B.; Daysal, B. An experimental study on the wear performance of 3D printed polylactic acid and carbon fiber reinforced polylactic acid parts: Effect of infill rate and water absorption time. Polym. Compos. 2025, 46, 372–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, H.; Zhu, S.; Chen, L.; Wang, L.; Zhang, H.; Wang, P.; Sun, K.; Wang, H.; Liu, C. 3D Printing Continuous Fiber Reinforced Polymers: A Review of Material Selection, Process, and Mechanics-Function Integration for Targeted Applications. Polymers 2025, 17, 1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dojan, C.F.; Ziaee, M.; Masoumipour, A.; Radosevich, S.J.; Yourdkhani, M. Additive manufacturing of carbon fiber-reinforced thermoset composites via in-situ thermal curing. Nat. Commun. 2025, 16, 4691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.; Choi, J.Y.; Lee, H.; Ok, K.; Ahn, S.H.; Jeon, J.H. Interdependent influence of additive manufacturing parameters and material hybridization with optimization for impact resistance. Manuf. Lett. 2025, 44, 847–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, W.; Zhang, Y.; Ramanujan, D.; Ramani, K.; Chen, Y.; Williams, C.B.; Wang, C.C.L.; Shin, Y.C.; Zhang, S.; Zavattieri, P.D. The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering. CAD Comput. Aided Des. 2015, 69, 65–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrovic, V.; Gonzalez, J.V.H.; Ferrando, O.J.; Gordillo, J.D.; Puchades, J.R.B.; Grinan, L.P. Additive layered manufacturing: Sectors of industrial application shown through case studies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2011, 49, 1061–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wohlers, T.; Gornet, T.; Mostow, N.; Campbell, I.; Diegel, O.; Kowen, J.; Huff, R.; Stucker, B.; Fidan, I.; Doukas, A.; et al. History of Additive Manufacturing. Wohlers Report 2016–2022. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4474824 (accessed on 30 August 2025).
- Lindemann, C.; Reiher, T.; Jahnke, U.; Koch, R. Towards a sustainable and economic selection of part candidates for additive manufacturing. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2015, 21, 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holmström, J.; Partanen, J.; Tuomi, J.; Walter, M. Rapid manufacturing in the spare parts supply chain: Alternative approaches to capacity deployment. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2010, 21, 687–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vlasceanu, D.; Baciu, F.; Popescu, D.; Hadar, A.; Marinescu, R. Development and 3D Printing of an ABS Ergonomic Handle for Medical Use A case study. Mater. Plast. 2018, 55, 630–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ventola, C.L. Medical Applications for 3D Printing: Current and Projected Uses. Pharm. Ther. 2014, 39, 704. Available online: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4189697/ (accessed on 30 November 2024).
- Chia, H.N.; Wu, B.M. Recent advances in 3D printing of biomaterials. J. Biol. Eng. 2015, 9, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.; Leu, M.; Mazumder, J.; Donmez, A. Additive Manufacturing: Current State, Future Potential. Gaps & Needs, and Recommendations 137 (2015). Available online: https://www.nist.gov/publications/additive-manufacturing-current-state-future-potential-gaps-needs-and-recommendations (accessed on 30 November 2024).
- Sun, Y.; Li, Q. The application of 3D printing in mathematics education. In Proceedings of the ICCSE 2017—12th International Conference on Computer Science and Education, Houston, TX, USA, 22–25 August 2017; pp. 47–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Y.; Li, Q. Visualization of Mathematical Education by 3D Printer. In Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Conference on Knowledge Innovation and Invention, Jeju, Republic of Korea, 23–27 July 2018; pp. 266–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tri, H.N.N.; Thanh, T.N. Exploring the potential benefits of 3D printing technology in laboratory equipment: Case studies on custom lab equipment and components. J. Mater. Constr. 2023, 13, 4–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W. Additive Manufacturing for Fabrication of Robotic Components. Adv. Robot. Mech. Eng. 2020, 169–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, R.; Bhavar, V.; Kattire, P.; Thakare, S.; Patil, S.; Singh, R.K.P. A Review on Functionally Gradient Materials (FGMs) and Their Applications. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 229, 012021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, I.; Rosen, D.; Stucker, B. Additive Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 1–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pradel, P.; Zhu, Z.; Bibb, R.; Moultrie, J. Investigation of design for additive manufacturing in professional design practice. J. Eng. Des. 2018, 29, 165–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chua, C.K.; Leong, K.F. 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing: Principles and Applications, 5th ed.; World Scientific Publishing: Singapore, 2017; pp. 1–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, S.H.; Liu, P.; Mokasdar, A.; Hou, L. Additive manufacturing and its societal impact: A literature review. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2013, 67, 1191–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manufacturing, A. Wohlers Report 2021 Finds 7. Available online: https://search.worldcat.org/title/1248723503 (accessed on 30 November 2024).
- Quality Assurance of 3D Printing-Ensure the Quality of Your Parts-Danish Technological Institute. Available online: https://www.dti.dk/services/quality-assurance-of-3d-printing/ensure-the-quality-of-your-parts/42960 (accessed on 30 August 2025).
- ISO/ASTM TS 52930:2021; Additive Manufacturing—Qualification Principles—Installation, Operation and Performance (IQ/OQ/PQ) of PBF-LB Equipment. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/79527.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 30 August 2025).
- Beitler, B.G.; Abraham, P.F.; Glennon, A.R.; Tommasini, S.M.; Lattanza, L.L.; Morris, J.M.; Wiznia, D.H. Interpretation of regulatory factors for 3D printing at hospitals and medical centers, or at the point of care. 3D Print. Med. 2022, 8, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UL Solutions Helps Build Safety with 3D Printed Technology|UL Solutions. Available online: https://www.ul.com/resources/ul-helps-build-safety-3d-printed-technology?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 30 August 2025).
- 3D Printing Safety: Potential Hazards, Protection and Practices–Raise3D: Reliable, Industrial Grade 3D Printer. Available online: https://www.raise3d.com/blog/3d-printing-safety/ (accessed on 30 August 2025).
- Kirchain, R.; Moore, E.; Field, F. Preparing the Advanced Manufacturing Workforce: A Study of Occupation and Skills Demand in the 3D/Additive Manufacturing Industry. 2022. Available online: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/143871 (accessed on 30 August 2025).
- Sector Skills Strategy in Additive Manufacturing [SAM]. CEDEFOP. Available online: https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/project-fiches/sector-skills-strategy-additive-manufacturing-sam?etransnolive=1&utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 30 August 2025).
- Tsay, G.S.; Staub-French, S.; Poirier, É. BIM for Facilities Management: An Investigation into the Asset Information Delivery Process and the Associated Challenges. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Advancing Facilities Management with a Digital Thread-White Paper-Technology Community Technology Community. Available online: https://it.ifma.org/advancing-facilities-management-with-a-digital-thread-white-paper/ (accessed on 30 August 2025).
- Dhir, A.; Talwar, S.; Islam, N.; Alghafes, R.; Badghish, S. Different strokes for different folks: Comparative analysis of 3D printing in large, medium and small firms. Technovation 2023, 125, 102792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamato, Y.; Fukumoto, Y.; Kumazaki, H. Proposal of Real Time Predictive Maintenance Platform with 3D Printer for Business Vehicles. Int. J. Inf. Electron. Eng. 2016, 6, 289–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 3D Printed Spare Parts—A Potential Risk? Available online: https://www.if-insurance.com/large-enterprises/insight/risk-consulting-magazine/risk-consulting-2018-1/3d-printed-spare-parts?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 30 August 2025).
- Niehues, S.; Berger, L.; Henke, M. Additive manufacturing in supply chains-the future of purchasing processes. TUHH Open Res. 2018, 25, 79–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arbabian, M.E. Strategic Adoption of 3D Printing in Multi-Product Supply Chains: Cost and Capacity Considerations. 2025. Available online: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.10198 (accessed on 30 August 2025).
- Espadinha-Cruz, P.; Neves, A.; Matos, F.; Godina, R. Development of a maturity model for additive manufacturing: A conceptual model proposal. Heliyon 2023, 9, e16099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mecheter, A.; Tarlochan, F.; Kucukvar, M. A Review of Conventional versus Additive Manufacturing for Metals: Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Analysis. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Z.; Han, C.; Gao, M.; Kandukuri, S.Y.; Zhou, K. A review on qualification and certification for metal additive manufacturing. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2022, 17, 382–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joshi, S.C.; Sheikh, A.A. 3D-printing in aerospace and its long-term sustainability. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2015, 10, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.C.; Chen, T.; Yeh, Y.L. Advanced 3D printing technologies for the aircraft industry: A fuzzy systematic approach for assessing the critical factors. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2019, 105, 4059–4069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sreehitha, V. Impact of 3D printing in automotive industry. Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. 2017, 5, 91–94. [Google Scholar]
- Petch, M. Audi Gives Update on Use of SLM Metal 3D Printing for the Automotive Industry, 3D Printing Industry. 2018. Available online: https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/audi-gives-update-use-slm-metal-3d-printing-automotive-industry-129376/ (accessed on 25 August 2025).
- Maghnani, R. An Exploratory Study: The impact of Additive Manufacturing on the Automobile Industry. Int. J. Curr. Eng. Technol. 2015, 5, 3407. Available online: https://inpressco.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Paper563407-3410.pdf (accessed on 25 August 2025).
- Liu, Z.; Zhang, M.; Bhandari, B.; Wang, Y. 3D printing: Printing precision and application in food sector. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 69, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banihashemi, S.; Akbarnezhad, A.; Sheikhkhoshkar, M.; El Haouzi, H.B.; Rolfe, B. 3D printing in construction: Sustainable technology for building industry. Prog. Addit. Manuf. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhuang, Z.; Xu, F.; Ye, J.; Hu, N.; Jiang, L.; Weng, Y. A comprehensive review of sustainable materials and toolpath optimization in 3D concrete printing. npj Mater. Sustain. 2024, 2, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preventive Maintenance with A 3D Printing Option. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331374681_Preventive_maintenance_with_a_3D_printing_option (accessed on 30 August 2025).
- Frastika, Y.; Pongoh, F.M.; Anwar, D.; Palapa, A.; Alamsya, J. Analysis of the Application of Additive Manufacturing for On-Demand Repair and Maintenance of Naval Equipment in Remote Maritime Operations. Int. J. Mech. Ind. Control Syst. Eng. 2025, 2, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Attaran, M. The rise of 3-D printing: The advantages of additive manufacturing over traditional manufacturing. Bus. Horiz. 2017, 60, 677–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jha, D.; Sawant, R.; Mukherjee, S.; Ashvinbhai, A.; Upadhyay, R.K. Redefining supply chain and related aspects through integration of 3D printing technology. Sustain. Manuf. Serv. Econ. 2025, 4, 100030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, H.K.; Griffin, J.; Lim, J.J.; Zeng, F.; Chiu, A.S.F. The impact of 3D Printing Technology on the supply chain: Manufacturing and legal perspectives. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 205, 156–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y. Research on the Application and Optimization of 3D Printing in Interior Decoration. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2024; pp. 596–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, D.; Kantaros, A.; Ganetsos, T.; Kanetaki, Z.; Stergiou, C.; Pallis, E.; Papoutsidakis, M. Design and Fabrication of Customizable Urban Furniture Through 3D Printing Processes. Processes 2025, 13, 2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 75% Cost Savings with 3D Printing. Voxeljet. Available online: https://www.voxeljet.com/additive-manufacturing/case-studies/foundry/3d-printing-saves-costs-in-sand-casting/ (accessed on 31 August 2025).
- Ballard, D.H.; Mills, P.; Duszak, R.; Weisman, J.A.; Rybicki, F.J.; Woodard, P.K. Medical 3D Printing Cost-savings in Orthopedic and Maxillofacial Surgery: Cost Analysis of Operating Room Time Saved with 3D Printed Anatomic Models and Surgical Guides. Acad. Radiol. 2019, 27, 1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 4 Ways AM Helps You Cut Costs and Create More Complex Parts. Available online: https://www.materialise.com/en/inspiration/articles/cut-costs-solve-complexity-additive-manufacturing (accessed on 31 August 2025).
- European Patent Office. Innovation Trends in Additive Manufacturing: Patents in 3D Printing Technologies; European Patent Office: Munich, Germany, 2023. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).