Received: 14 May 2019 Revised: 1 July 2019 Accepted: 23 July 2019

DOI: 10.1002/mdp2.97

REPORT

3D Printing of polymer composites: A short review

Sunpreet Singh1 | Seeram Ramakrishna2 | Filippo Berto3

1
Visiting Scholar, Mechanical
EngineeringDepartment, National
University of Singapore, Singapore
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
National University of Singapore,
Singapore
3 tural excellences. Indeed, the main credit for the widespread acknowledgment
Department of Mechanical and
Industrial Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, Trondheim,
Norway
Correspondence
Sunpreet Singh, Visiting Scholar,
Production Engineering Department,
Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College,
Ludhiana 141006, India.
Email: snprt.singh@gmail.com
Funding information
National Innovative Manufacturing Clus-
ter @ National University of Singapore,
Grant/Award Number: 2018249
Abstract
Composite or reinforced materials, especially in the class of polymers, are
becoming prominent materials for the diversified range of engineering and
scientific utilities because of their physical, chemical, mechanical, and struc-
of polymer matrix composites (PMCs) goes to the various types of natural and
synthetic reinforcements, which resulted in good interfacial chemistries. How-
ever, the intrinsic challenges of traditional manufacturing technologies always
presented restrictions in the development of application specific PMCs. Report-
edly, with an evolution of three‐dimensional printing (3DP) technologies, the
applications of PMCs have been transformed as these enabled the production
of near‐net shapes with high degree of control over the design, reinforcements,
and processing parametric while maintaining the waste associated at minimal
level. However, the industrial benefits of 3DP technologies for still limited
owing to the lack of awareness among the young professionals and industrial-
ists. Moreover, the literature available in this regard is either too scattered
making it tedious for the professionals to go through or limited to only funda-
mental concepts. Therefore, the concept of this review paper is to provide brief
research‐based insights of different 3DP technologies (namely, fused depo-
sition modeling, selective laser sintering, stereolithography, laminated object
manufacturing, and inkjet printing), material systems, applications, and the
future paradigms of research as a short and precise document.

KEYWORDS
3D printing, applications, composite, polymer, processing, reinforcement

1 | INTRODUCTION

Generally, the polymer systems have always attained the attention of manufacturers because of their unique character-
istics such as ease of processing, light weight, low cost, long life, and often ductility.1 However, in comparison of the
metals and ceramics, polymers offer significantly less modulus and strength because of which the unique features of
the later were always outweighed.2,3 Many decades ago, researchers found a novel method of eliminating the challenges
of polymeric systems through the reinforcement of secondary metallic, ceramic, or polymeric inclusions in the form of
fibers, whiskers, platelets, or particles.4,5 The embedment of such inclusions in a host polymer matrix makes it a com-
posite,6 commonly referred as polymer matrix composites (PMCs),7 which offer enhanced material properties that have
been used for demanding engineering applications.8 Conventionally, PMCs were reinforced with microsized inclusions9;
however, the recent paradigms have shifted this trend towards the use of nanoscale inclusions, with an average size
Mat Design Process Comm. 2020;2:e97. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mdp2 © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 13
https://doi.org/10.1002/mdp2.97
2 of 13 SINGH ET AL.

ranging10,11 between 1 and 100 nm. It has been proved by various researchers that the inclusion of nanoscale improves
the mechanical, metallurgical, electrical, thermal, and other desirable quality characteristics of the developed PMCs.12-15
This was the phase wherein the conventional applications of the PMCs were already established in automobile, aero-
space, and structural domains,16-19 and bloom in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology has encouraged the
scientific community to start using PMCs in other important fields including computing,20 sensors,21 optical,22 marine,23
biomedical,24,25 and many other smart applications.26 Figure 1 illustrates the various industrial applications of three‐
dimensional printing (3DP)–based PMCs.
Indeed, the advancements in the aforementioned fields were primarily depended on the ability to synthesize nano-
particles of various materials, sizes, and shapes, as well as the processing routes, for instance, 3DP, which can assemble
and position these, efficiently, into the complex architectures.27,28 Printing of polymer composites combines the matrix
and reinforcements to achieve a system with more useful structural or functional properties nonattainable by any of the
constituent alone.29 Generally, the use of particle, fiber, or nanomaterial reinforcements in polymeric matrices allows
the fabrication of PMCs, which are characterized by high mechanical performance and excellent functionality. In
today's scientific practices, the literature is advocating that carbon tubes,30,31 graphene,32 and graphite33,34 are the three
most extensively practiced reinforcements for the fabrication of PMCs of high efficacy.
In the contemporary era, the rapid consumption of petroleum‐based polymeric systems and noticeable polymeric
waste associated with the manufacturing technologies have also received a lot of criticism, owing to which increased
environmental awareness reached a new levels of practices with much emphasis on the employment of naturally driven
polymeric‐based materials in place of routine synthetic materials as well as to use efficient manufacturing routes to
reduce the residual wastes.35 Natural resources, including oil, gas, potable water, clean air, fertile soil, rare metals, min-
erals, wood, and biodiversity, are essential for human survival and for keeping the global economy functioning.36 Mean-
while, a new class of reinforcements, based on the waste, has also come into practice.37,38 During the same, a new
terminology “Green Composites” came into existence, which referred to the materials with benefits to the companies,
natural environment, and end‐customers.17 The most widely employed natural‐organic fillers, wood flour and fibers, are
easy and cost‐effective to achieve from sawmill wastes and provide excellent thermo‐mechanical properties.39
Various categories of conventional manufacturing methods for PMCs usually use mold tooling made of metallic
materials as well as nonmetallic materials, which are welcoming for the different types of reinforcements. However,
except fibrous reinforcements, it is utmost difficult for the manufacturers to control the distribution or placements of
the fillers within the polymeric architectures. Nonetheless the materials' issue, tool fabrication itself consumes notice-
able labor and machining leading to high costs and long lead times.40 Here, the use of 3DP technologies has demon-
strated considerable cost and lead time reductions while providing numerous other advantages such as immense
design freedom and rapid iteration, nearly regardless of part complexity. Furthermore, it also provides the opportunity
to produce lightweight tooling, directly simplifying transportation and storage operations within manufacturing facili-
ties.40 Advancements in the development of composite 3D printers motivated the growth in preblended materials with
fillers such as nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, fibers, and graphene in order to achieve unique characteristics and
capabilities.41 Fiber reinforcement, in particular, appeared to be an attractive filler to improve the properties of poly-
mers.42 However, one of the biggest challenges in developing practical applications with 3DP, using PMCs, is that, till

FIGURE 1 Applications of polymer matrix composites

SINGH ET AL. 3 of 13

now, the duo has been used mostly for either producing conceptual prototypes or performing academic research. Such
drawbacks restrict the wide industrial application of 3D‐printed PMCs.28
In Kumar and Kruth,43 it has been highlighted that since 2010, when the very first document in the area of 3DP of
PMCs has been published by Olatunde Olakanmi et al,44 no significant breakthroughs have been presented. Further,
they43 suggested that there should be simultaneous developments executed in terms of the both 3DP systems and PMCs,
as their feedstock, in order to deliver distinct physicochemical properties into the resultant product. Surely, this will
exhibit unique characteristics and capabilities.44 Till few years ago, 3DP techniques have suffered from underappreci-
ated similarity to those of old‐style composite materials, as both are integrally based on assembling a series of distinct
layers. However, today, it is consequently judicious to propose that efficacious adaptation of 3DP technologies to com-
posite materials could enable a simple composite manufacturing method with lower production cost and a high degree
of automation, as reinforcements can be accurately placed, the laminated structure of composite parts can be further
optimized in each layer, allowing for an increase in design freedom and mechanical performance.45
In view of the cited literature, this review is focused to brief the various 3DP technologies, materials, and applications
associated with the PMCs along with roadmaps for the future research efforts required in the considered domain of
interest.

2 | 3DP TECHNOLOGIES FOR P MC SYSTEMS

Todays' manufacturing using 3D printing is taking up with the phenomenon of using multimaterial printing opportu-
nities wherein the different materials could be deposited in a designed fashion as well as using a preblended composite
feedstock consisting of different types of fillers.46,47 The choice of the composite formation generally depends on the
types of printing systems; however, both approaches are capable of delivering distinct physicochemical properties into
the resultant materials.44,48,49 This domain of composite printing is presenting a combination of superior technologies
and material systems with an immense potential, affordability, simplicity, and unaccountable advantages.50 Table 1
describes the recent applications of 3DP systems for different end‐user applications by utilizing PMC systems.

2.1 | Fused deposition modeling

Fused deposition modeling (FDM) is one of the most widely used 3DP systems that has been extensively considered by
most of the domain researchers, across the world. The statistics reported in Parandoush and Lin42 highlighted that the
commercial FDM systems held 41.5% of the market share, with the total of 15,000 machines sold by the end of 2010.
However, today, it is almost impossible to count the sale of FDM systems as after the collapse of the technology's patent,
which earlier held by Stratasys Inc, various firms started the production of cost effective printers. Technically, FDM fol-
lows extrusion principle as discussed in plethora of publications.91-95 Further, the key elements of FDM96 and process
parameters97-99 are highlighted by others. Traditionally, FDM was suitable for only pure thermoplastics; however, now-
adays, reinforced feedstock are also commercially available. But the authenticity of such feedstock is never guaranteed,
and most of the practitioners willingly develop their own feedstock by using suitable processing routes.52 For more
information on the technological aspects, experimental schematics, materials, and applications, articles28,41,42 could
be referred.

2.2 | Selective laser sintering

Selective laser sintering (SLS) is a 3DP process wherein the polymeric powder particles are fused with the help of high
laser power.53,54 Similar to the other types of 3DP technologies, the laser fuses the polymer powder at specific locations
for each layer specified by the design.100 In SLS printing, the quality characteristics of the resulting print depend on the
processing condition, especially the laser power and scan speed.55,56 The working procedure of SLS is well explained in
Mazzoli.67 The different classes of polymers available for SLS process are discussed in Drummer et al57 and Schmid
et al.58 Particularly in biomedical engineering, the scope of SLS is huge.59-64 Further, blended polymers as well as PMCs
are also suitable for SLS processing.65,66,101,102 In Bourell et al103 and Singh et al,104 authors discussed the various issues
of SLS process.
4 of 13 SINGH ET AL.

TABLE 1 Description of recent trends in 3DP of PMCs for various applications

Thermoplastic/Thermoset
Schematic of Technology Matrix Fillers Application Ref

Fused deposition modeling (FDM)

52
Thermoplastic (PLA) Bronze Structural
53
Thermoset (EVA) Graphite Electrical
54
Thermoplastic (ABS) Copper/Iron Thermal
55
Thermoplastic (PCL) HAP Biomedical
56
Thermoplastic (ABS) Graphene Structural and
Thermal
57
Thermoplastic (ABS) Carbon fiber Load bearing
58
Thermoplastic (PLA) Graphite Electrical and
thermal
59
Thermoplastic (PLA) Graphene Biomedical
60
Thermoplastic (PCL) Bioactive glass Biomedical
61
Thermoplastic (PLA/PEG blend) Titania glass Biomedical
Thermoplastic (PCL) β‐tri‐calcium phosphate Biomedical 62,63

64
51 Thermoplastic (ABS) Montmorrilonite Structural and
thermal
65
Thermoplastic (PLA) Multiwall carbon nano Electrical
tubes
66
Thermoplastic (PPR) Graphene oxide Electrical
Selective laser sintering (SLS)
68
Thermoplastic (PA‐12) Carbon nano‐fiber Mechanical
69
Carbon black Mechanical
70
Thermoplastic (PA‐11) Silica Mechanical
71
Thermoplastic (PCL) Hydroxyapatite Biomedical
72
Thermoplastic (PE) Hydroxyapatite Biomedical
73
Thermoplastic (PA) Glass beads Biomedical
74
Thermoplastic (PA‐12) Carbon fiber Mechanical
67

Stereolithography (SLA)
76
Thermoplastics (Acrylate and Yttria stabilized zirconia Biomedical
methacrylate)
77
Thermoset (Acrylate resin) 45S5 Bioglass Biomedical
78
Thermoset (Polyramic (SPR‐ SiOC and SiC Mechanical
212))
79
Thermoset (Methacrylate Boron nitride Biomedical
oligomers)
75 80
Thermoplastic (PMMA) Urea, resorcinol, and Smart
ammonium chloride materials
81
Thermoset (Envision‐TEC) Graphene Electrical

Laminated object manufacturing (LOM)

83
Thermoset (Epoxy) Glass fiber Mechanical
(Continues)
SINGH ET AL. 5 of 13

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Thermoplastic/Thermoset
Schematic of Technology Matrix Fillers Application Ref
84
Thermoset (PI film) Graphene Energy and
electronics

82

Inkjet printing
86
Thermoset (Poly‐iso‐butylene) Quantum dots Electrical
87
Thermoset (PVA) CdTe nanocrystals Electrical
88
Thermoset (Polyacrylate) Alumina nanoparticles Mechanical
89
Thermoset (Polyaniline) Graphene Electrical
90
Thermoplastic (poly(2‐ Single wall carbon nano‐ Electrical
methoxyaniline‐5‐sulfonic tubes
acid)

85

2.3 | Stereolithography

When compared with other 3DP systems, stereolithography (SLA) has an edge as it possesses a comparatively high res-
olution and can create mechanically stable and watertight polymeric channel by using a liquidized photo‐curable resin
as feedstock,105 to be cured by a UV light.106 As mentioned in Bártolo and Gibson,107 the applications of 3DP, again, are
widespread among a multitude of industries, which includes fashion industry, automotive and aerospace, biomedical,
and construction. Indeed, SLA has proven as a fast, stable, mask‐less, and layer‐by‐layer additive process, with signifi-
cant ability of building truly 3D, high‐aspect‐ratio, and light‐weight microscale and mesoscale structures.108 Similar to
SLS, SLA too has noticeable scope for the biomedical applications as it can utilize both natural and synthetic poly-
mers.75 However, retaining the degradability and mechanical properties is of utmost importance for available polymers.
Kalsoom et al41 and Parandoush and Lin42 highlighted the advanced materials and applications of SLA. At the same
time, a significant volume of literature cites the intrinsic problems of the SLA technology.109-113

2.4 | Laminated object manufacturing

The least explored and popular type of 3DP system is known as laminated object manufacturing (LOM), which majorly
used for the production of prototypes with the help of paper, polymeric films and foils, and metal laminates as feed-
stock.114-116 Further, the used of different combination of aforementioned feedstock helps attaining better mechanical
properties.82 LOM‐based printing is divided into three major steps, including adhesion joining, clamping, and ultrasonic
welding.82 Thus, this approach represents a compromise between additive and subtractive manufacturing strategies in
the building of three dimensional structures. Like FDM, in LOM too, fabrication of fiber‐reinforced composite filaments
and laminates is required as a prestep before printing.43
6 of 13 SINGH ET AL.

2.5 | Inkjet

Inkjet printing is different from the other 3DP technologies in not just a way that it has high resolution but also because
of the fact that it allows drop‐on‐demand of the various types of the feedstock such as hydrogels, bio‐inks, liquid poly-
mers, metallic solutions, and ceramics.117,118 Apart from the conductive interfaces, which have been practiced with
inkjet printing most widely, this printing technology has also been used for building biomedical devices, sensors, elec-
trical devices, etc.117-120 Apart from these, numerous other applications have been highlighted by De Gans et al68 and
Singh et al.69 Especially during the last years, the fabrication of narrow conductive tracks by methods of inkjet printing
has been investigated extensively.70,71 Further, researchers investigated the production of light emitting substances72,85
and electrically active devices73,74,121 by using inkjet printing.
As discussed above, there are a wide range of industrial applications acting as a catalyst for the concerned community in
order to provide their continuous and blooming research efforts. Table 2 highlights the current industrial or scientific
applications of 3DP‐based PMCs.

TABLE 2 Applications of 3DP‐based PMCs in the current era

Application Material System 3DP Used Key Outcomes Ref

Smart TangoBlack+ and shape memory
devices polymer fibers
Polyurethane acrylate oligomers, reactive Direct ink‐writing
diluents, photoinitiator, rheology
modifier and the alumina platelets.
Polyethylene glycol diacrylate and
Barium Titanate Nanoparticle
Polymorph and carbon black
Energy ABS/Graphene
Biomedical PLGA polymer with β‐tri‐calcium
122
FDM In view of the benefits of easy fabrication and the
controllable multi‐shape memory effect, the
printed shape memory polymer structures have
great potential in biomedical domain
123
The 5D design space covered by the multi‐material
magnetically assisted 3D printing platform gave
lights to the manufacturing of functional
heterogeneous materials
124
3D optical printing The composites with a 10% mass loading of the
chemically modified barium titanate nanoparticle
showed piezoelectric coefficients of ∼40 pC/N
125
FDM The developed material and unmodified FDM
system was found suitable printing electronic
sensors able to sense mechanical flexing and
capacitance changes
126
3D printer HOF1‐X1 The composites' linear thermal coefficient was
lower than 75 ppm °C−1 from room to glass
transition temperature, making it crucial to build
minute thermal stress
TheriForm The developed scaffolds had higher percentages of 127

phosphate new bone area compared with unfilled control

defects
128
PLA, wax, and polysulphonamide 3D printer Model The PLA scaffolds developed with complex internal
Maker II architectures mimicked human trabecular bone
were produced
155
Automobile Nylon and carbon fiber SLS The printing presented a complete product with
suitable tolerances
156
Aerospace ABS/PLA, and short carbon microfibers FDM Filaments embedded with short carbon micro fibers
showed better print capabilities for aerospace
industry
157
Textile Conductive polymers FDM, SLS, and SLA The fashion industry has received numerous
benefits by the fruitful utilities of 3DPs
158
Food Different types of natural polymers FDM, SLS, Powder The review paper highlighted that there are a wide
bed binder jetting, range of natural edible polymers which can be
and inkjet printing printed through various classes of 3DPs
159
Structural Nickel coated with carbon and alumina SLA Flexural strength of aligned samples with 1% by wt
fibers of carbon fiber loading was improved by 90%
SINGH ET AL. 7 of 13

3 | SU MM ARY A N D F U T UR E R OA D M AP S

From the cited literature, it has been observed that the scope of 3DP and PMCs for various scientific and engineering
applications is huge. It has been seen that the 3DP technologies have successfully addressed the industrial applications,
such as automobile, aerospace, structural, energy, biomedical, electrical, and smart devices. Further, for developing
PMCs through 3DP technologies, suitable feedstock systems are not usually readily available. Therefore, literature
has witnessed the in‐house developed PMC systems; the practical utility of the 3DP systems has enhanced. However,
such exercises demand intensive optimization of the materials' chemistries and processing states, which are found to
be highly effective as concerned to the final outcomes. Nowadays, various conventional manufacturing technologies
for the PMCs are being replaced with the 3DP owing to the availability of the better process control and feasibility of
precise positioning of the reinforcements in later. Some of the recent publications even explored the feasibility of using
reinforced thermoset polymers for demanding applications.129,130 However, use of a viscous feedstock, because of the
presence of the fillers, is a big challenge as such material systems often demand parametric optimizations or replace-
ment of the certain parts, accordingly. Moreover, it is difficult to conclude that whether the applications, as highlighted
in the main text of the review, will receive commercialization certifications or will always be confined with the research
and development laboratories. For instance, most of the biomedical devices and tools developed are yet to receive Food
and Drug Administration (USA). Table 3 shows the research opportunities and challenges for 3DP of PMCs.
In order to establish the combined outcomes of PMCs and 3DP systems, it is a must to establish the repeatability and
consistency of the manufactured parts. However, it is certainly difficult to predict how the available capacities of the
printers will cover the broad range nano to macro. Despite the development of highly advanced applications through
3DP of PMCs, for example, energy storage devices, biomedical constructs, and electrical and electronic devices, it is
always necessary to conduct a comparative analysis with the standard products on the basis of sustainability, energy,
life, and efficacy. Quite a number of studies related to smart product manufacturing are still seeking for field applica-
tions as well as product lifecycle management. Moreover, the 3DP‐based PMCs through a tight coupling among
material development, process development, process control, testing, and certification of products produced by 3DP will
lay the foundation of valuable progressions of many other emerging technologies. Industries and business enterprises
should also welcome the academically developed 3DP‐based PMCs with open arms as without the collaboration of aca-
demia industries, this technology cannot be flourished. The interdisciplinary research must be used in a variety of
research activities to revolutionize 3DP‐based manufacturing and inspection methods in order to overcome existing

TABLE 3 Challenges and opportunities for futuristic research in the area of 3DP of PMCs

S
No Opportunities Challenges

1 System up‐gradation: The commercially available 3DP systems are The tuning of the 3DP systems in accordance of developed PMCs
generally compatible with pure polymers and are tuned
accordingly. Further, different types of 3DP setups could be
merged together to strengthen the merits.
2 Feedstock development: There has been a huge scope for the
development of the customized feedstock for the different types
of printing systems in order to enable the resulting product
suitable for end‐user application.
3 Print production: This involves the application of the different
optimization and statistical approaches in order to investigate
the best process condition for the efficient fabrication of the
prints.
4 Testing and evaluation: The opportunity available here in terms of Indeed, the creation of the closely simulating test environment is
evaluating the printed products in realistic environments, from
where the performance of the products could be simulated very
close to the realistic conditions.
5 Certification: The products after successful testing should be
certified in order to widen the scope of commercialization
prospects. The academic contribution in this will make the
process smooth.
needs replacement of the elemental components which itself is
time consuming task.
This is an interdisciplinary task, which needs the combined
efforts of the materials scientists, manufacturing experts, and
statisticians.
The main challenge here is to find out the most significant
parameters as any biased selection may result in undesirable
outcomes.
very difficult. It is the fact that most of the test has been
performed using standardized specimens, which may not
replicate the complexity of the actual geometries.
Because of the variations in the standards in different countries, it
is very difficult to make the commercial start‐up successful.
8 of 13 SINGH ET AL.

manufacturing challenges and improve industry competitiveness.131 Furthermore, the hybridization of the various types
of 3DP systems can overcome the exiting printing issues related to the materials and parameters. The combination of
different printing principles will enable the production of the efficient multimaterial architectures.

A C K N O WL E D G E M E N T
Professor Seeram Ramakrishna and Dr Sunpreet Singh would like to thank the finance assistance received from NAMIC
Research Project (ID: 2018249) entitled “Development of an FDM‐based PEEK 3D printing system with improved layer
adhesion.”

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There exists no conflict of interest.

ORCID
Sunpreet Singh https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9592-4828
Filippo Berto https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9676-9970

R EF E RE N C E S
1. DeGarmo EP, Black JT, Kohser RA, Klamecki BE. Materials and Process in Manufacturing. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 1997.
2. Dutton S, Kelly D, Baker A. Composite Materials for Aircraft Structures; Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics;
2004.
3. Huang ZM, Zhang YZ, Kotaki M, Ramakrishna S. A review on polymer nanofibers by electrospinning and their applications in nanocom-
posites. Compos Sci Technol. 2003;63(15):2223‐2253.
4. Masuelli MA. Introduction of fibre‐reinforced polymers—polymers and composites: concepts, properties and processes. InFiber Reinforced
Polymers‐The Technology Applied for Concrete Repair 2013. IntechOpen.
5. Clyne TW, Hull D. An Introduction to Composite Materials. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2019.
6. Chang JH, An YU. Nanocomposites of polyurethane with various organoclays: thermomechanical properties, morphology, and gas perme-
ability. J Polym Sci B. 2002;40(7):670‐677.
7. Zavyalov SA, Pivkina AN, Schoonman J. Formation and characterization of metal‐polymer nanostructured composites. Solid State Ion.
2002;147(3–4):415‐419.
8. Sennett M, Welsh E, Wright JB, Li WZ, Wen JG, Ren ZF. Dispersion and alignment of carbon nanotubes in polycarbonate. MRS Online
Proceedings Library Archive 2001;706.
9. Jordan J, Jacob KI, Tannenbaum R, Sharaf MA, Jasiuk I. Experimental trends in polymer nanocomposites—a review. Mater Sci Eng A.
2005;393(1–2):1‐1.
10. Chan CM, Wu J, Li JX, Cheung YK. Polypropylene/calcium carbonate nanocomposites. Polymer. 2002 May 1;43(10):2981‐2992.
11. Rong MZ, Zhang MQ, Zheng YX, Zeng HM, Walter R, Friedrich K. Structure–property relationships of irradiation grafted nano‐inorganic
particle filled polypropylene composites. Polymer. 2001 Jan 1;42(1):167‐183.
12. Ramanathan T, Abdala AA, Stankovich S, et al. Functionalized graphene sheets for polymer nanocomposites. Nat Nanotechnol. 2008
Jun;3(6):327.
13. Kim H, Abdala AA, Macosko CW. Graphene/polymer nanocomposites. Macromolecules. 2010 Jul 23;43(16):6515‐6530.
14. Potts JR, Dreyer DR, Bielawski CW, Ruoff RS. Graphene‐based polymer nanocomposites. Polymer. 2011 Jan 7;52(1):5‐25.
15. Mai YW, Yu ZZ. Polymer Nanocomposites. Sawston, Cambridge: Woodhead publishing; 2006 Feb 28.
16. Friedrich K, Almajid AA. Manufacturing aspects of advanced polymer composites for automotive applications. Appl Compos Mater. 2013
Apr 1;20(2):107‐128.
17. Koronis G, Silva A, Fontul M. Green composites: a review of adequate materials for automotive applications. Compos Part B Eng. 2013 Jan
1;44(1):120‐127.
18. Ku H, Wang H, Pattarachaiyakoop N, Trada M. A review on the tensile properties of natural fiber reinforced polymer composites. Compos
Part B Eng. 2011 Jun 1;42(4):856‐873.
19. Shalwan A, Yousif BF. In state of art: mechanical and tribological behaviour of polymeric composites based on natural fibres. Mater Des.
2013 Jun 1;48:14‐24.
20. Huang X, Qi X, Boey F, Zhang H. Graphene‐based composites. Chem Soc Rev. 2012;41(2):666‐686.
SINGH ET AL. 9 of 13

21. Syrett JA, Becer CR, Haddleton DM. Self‐healing and self‐mendable polymers. Polym Chem. 2010;1(7):978‐987.
22. David D, Evanoff J, Chumanov G. Synthesis and optical properties of silver nanoparticles and arrays. Chem Phys Chem. 2005;6:1221‐1231.
23. Ma M, Guo L, Anderson DG, Langer R. Bio‐inspired polymer composite actuator and generator driven by water gradients. Science. 2013
Jan 11;339(6116):186‐189.
24. Venkatesan J, Kim SK. Chitosan composites for bone tissue engineering—an overview. Mar Drugs. 2010;8(8):2252‐2266.
25. Armentano I, Dottori M, Fortunati E, Mattioli S, Kenny JM. Biodegradable polymer matrix nanocomposites for tissue engineering: a
review. Polym Degrad Stab. 2010 Nov 1;95(11):2126‐2146.
26. Habisreutinger SN, Leijtens T, Eperon GE, Stranks SD, Nicholas RJ, Snaith HJ. Carbon nanotube/polymer composites as a highly stable
hole collection layer in perovskite solar cells. Nano Lett. 2014 Sep 22;14(10):5561‐5568.
27. Blaiszik BJ, Kramer SL, Olugebefola SC, Moore JS, Sottos NR, White SR. Self‐healing polymers and composites. Annu Rev Mat Res. 2010
Aug 4;40(1):179‐211.
28. Wang X, Jiang M, Zhou Z, Gou J, Hui D. 3D printing of polymer matrix composites: a review and prospective. Compos Part B Eng. 2017
Feb 1;110:442‐458.
29. Vivek T, Arunkumar P, Deshpande AS, Vinayak M, Kulkarni RM, Asif A. Development of polymer nano composite patterns using fused
deposition modeling for rapid investment casting process. InAIP Conference Proceedings 2018 Apr 20 (Vol. 1943, No. 1, p. 020110). AIP
Publishing.
30. Liang J, Huang Y, Zhang L, et al. Molecular‐level dispersion of graphene into poly (vinyl alcohol) and effective reinforcement of their
nanocomposites. Adv Funct Mater. 2009 Jul 24;19(14):2297‐2302.
31. Balog R, Jørgensen B, Nilsson L, et al. Bandgap opening in graphene induced by patterned hydrogen adsorption. Nat Mater. 2010
Apr;9(4):315.
32. Kuilla T, Bhadra S, Yao D, Kim NH, Bose S, Lee JH. Recent advances in graphene based polymer composites. Prog Polym Sci. 2010 Nov
1;35(11):1350‐1375.
33. Zheng W, Wong SC. Electrical conductivity and dielectric properties of PMMA/expanded graphite composites. Compos Sci Technol. 2003
Feb 1;63(2):225‐235.
34. Sengupta R, Bhattacharya M, Bandyopadhyay S, Bhowmick AK. A review on the mechanical and electrical properties of graphite and
modified graphite reinforced polymer composites. Prog Polym Sci. 2011 May 1;36(5):638‐670.
35. Güven O, Monteiro SN, Moura EA, Drelich JW. Re‐emerging field of lignocellulosic fiber–polymer composites and ionizing radiation
technology in their formulation. Polym Rev. 2016 Oct 1;56(4):702‐736.
36. Mülhaupt R. Green polymer chemistry and bio‐based plastics: Dreams and reality. Macromol Chem Phys. 2013 Jan 25;214(2):159‐174.
37. Wool R, Sun XS. Bio‐based Polymers and Composites. San Diego, CA: Elsevier; 2011 Aug 30.
38. Battegazzore D, Noori A, Frache A. Natural wastes as particle filler for poly (lactic acid)‐based composites. J Thermoplast Compos Mater.
2019 Mar;53(6):783‐797.
39. La Mantia FP, Morreale M. Green composites: a brief review. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf. 2011 Jun 1;42(6):579‐588.
40. Attaran M. The rise of 3‐D printing: the advantages of additive manufacturing over traditional manufacturing. Bus Horiz. 2017 Sep
1;60(5):677‐688.
41. Kalsoom U, Nesterenko PN, Paull B. Recent developments in 3D printable composite materials. RSC Adv. 2016;6(65):60355‐60371.
42. Parandoush P, Lin D. A review on additive manufacturing of polymer‐fiber composites. Compos Struct. 2017 Dec 15;182:36‐53.
43. Kumar S, Kruth JP. Composites by rapid prototyping technology. Mater Des. 2010 Feb 1;31(2):850‐856.
44. Olatunde Olakanmi E, Dalgarno KW, Cochrane RF. Laser sintering of blended Al‐Si powders. Rapid Prototyp J. 2012 Mar 2;18(2):109‐119.
45. Blok LG, Longana ML, Yu H, Woods BK. An investigation into 3D printing of fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites. Addit Manuf.
2018 Aug 1;22:176‐186.
46. Christ S, Schnabel M, Vorndran E, Groll J, Gbureck U. Fiber reinforcement during 3D printing. Mater Lett. 2015 Jan 15;139:165‐168.
47. Wang J, Shaw LL. Fabrication of functionally graded materials via inkjet color printing. J Am Ceram Soc. 2006 Oct;89(10):3285‐3289.
48. Olakanmi EO, Cochrane RF, Dalgarno KW. Densification mechanism and microstructural evolution in selective laser sintering of Al–12Si
powders. J Mater Process Technol. 2011 Jan 1;211(1):113‐121.
49. Winkel A, Meszaros R, Reinsch S, et al. Sintering of 3 D‐Printed Glass/HA p Composites. J Am Ceram Soc. 2012 Nov;95(11):3387‐3393.
50. Quan Z, Wu A, Keefe M, et al. Additive manufacturing of multi‐directional preforms for composites: opportunities and challenges. Mater
Today. 2015 Nov 1;18(9):503‐512.
51. Ning F, Cong W, Hu Y, Wang H. Additive manufacturing of carbon fiber‐reinforced plastic composites using fused deposition modeling:
effects of process parameters on tensile properties. J Thermoplast Compos Mater. 2017 Feb;51(4):451‐462.
52. Singh S, Ramakrishna S, Singh R. Material issues in additive manufacturing: a review. J Manuf Process. 2017 Jan 1;25:185‐200.
53. Prakash KS, Nancharaih T, Rao VS. Additive manufacturing techniques in manufacturing—an overview. Mater Today Proc. 2018 Jan
1;5(2):3873‐3882.
54. Wong KV, Hernandez A. A review of additive manufacturing. ISRN Mech Eng. 2012 Aug;16:2012.
10 of 13 SINGH ET AL.

55. Caulfield B, McHugh PE, Lohfeld S. Dependence of mechanical properties of polyamide components on build parameters in the SLS pro-
cess. J Mater Process Technol. 2007 Feb 2;182(1–3):477‐488.
56. Williams JD, Deckard CR. Advances in modeling the effects of selected parameters on the SLS process. Rapid Prototyp J. 1998 Jun
1;4(2):90‐100.
57. Drummer D, Rietzel D, Kühnlein F. Development of a characterization approach for the sintering behavior of new thermoplastics for
selective laser sintering. Phys Procedia. 2010 Jan 1;5:533‐542.
58. Schmid M, Amado A, Wegener K. Polymer powders for selective laser sintering (SLS). InAIP Conference proceedings 2015 May 22 (Vol.
1664, No. 1, p. 160009). AIP Publishing.
59. Fischer P, Karapatis N, Romano V, Glardon R, Weber HP. A model for the interaction of near‐infrared laser pulses with metal powders in
selective laser sintering. Appl Phys A. 2002 Apr 1;74(4):467‐474.
60. Hao L, Savalani MM, Zhang Y, Tanner KE, Harris RA. Selective laser sintering of hydroxyapatite reinforced polyethylene composites for
bioactive implants and tissue scaffold development. Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med. 2006 Apr 1;220(4):521‐531.
61. Hayashi T, Maekawa K, Tamura M, Hanyu K. Selective laser sintering method using titanium powder sheet toward fabrication of porous
bone substitutes. JSME Int J Series A Solid Mechan Mater Eng. 2005;48(4):369‐375.
62. Cacopardo L, Guazzelli N, Nossa R, Mattei G, Ahluwalia A. Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials. J Mech Behav
Biomed Mater. 2019;89:162‐167.
63. Calignano F, Galati M, Iuliano L, Minetola P. Design of additively manufactured structures for biomedical applications: A review of the
additive manufacturing processes applied to the biomedical sector. J Healthcare Eng. 2019;2019:x.
64. Duan B, Wang M, Zhou WY, Cheung WL, Li ZY, Lu WW. Three‐dimensional nanocomposite scaffolds fabricated via selective laser
sintering for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. 2010 Dec 1;6(12):4495‐4505.
65. Peyre P, Rouchausse Y, Defauchy D, Régnier G. Experimental and numerical analysis of the selective laser sintering (SLS) of PA12 and
PEKK semi‐crystalline polymers. J Mater Process Technol. 2015 Nov 1;225:326‐336.
66. Xia Y, Zhou P, Cheng X, et al. Selective laser sintering fabrication of nano‐hydroxyapatite/poly‐ε‐caprolactone scaffolds for bone tissue
engineering applications. Int J Nanomedicine. 2013;8:4197.
67. Mazzoli A. Selective laser sintering in biomedical engineering. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2013 Mar 1;51(3):245‐256.
68. De Gans BJ, Duineveld PC, Schubert US. Inkjet printing of polymers: state of the art and future developments. Adv Mater. 2004 Feb
3;16(3):203‐213.
69. Singh M, Haverinen HM, Dhagat P, Jabbour GE. Inkjet printing—process and its applications. Adv Mater. 2010 Feb 9;22(6):673‐685.
70. Van Osch TH, Perelaer J, de Laat AW, Schubert US. Inkjet printing of narrow conductive tracks on untreated polymeric substrates. Adv
Mater. 2008 Jan 18;20(2):343‐345.
71. Sirringhaus H, Kawase T, Friend RH, et al. High‐resolution inkjet printing of all‐polymer transistor circuits. Science. 2000 Dec
15;290(5499):2123‐2126.
72. Shimoda T, Morii K, Seki S, Kiguchi H. Inkjet printing of light‐emitting polymer displays. Mrs Bulletin. 2003 Nov;28(11):821‐827.
73. Kordás K, Mustonen T, Tóth G, et al. Inkjet printing of electrically conductive patterns of carbon nanotubes. Small. 2006 Aug;2(8–
9):1021‐1025.
74. Perelaer J, Hendriks CE, de Laat AW, Schubert US. One‐step inkjet printing of conductive silver tracks on polymer substrates. Nanotech-
nology. 2009 Mar 31;20(16):165303.
75. Mondschein RJ, Kanitkar A, Williams CB, Verbridge SS, Long TE. Polymer structure‐property requirements for stereolithographic 3D
printing of soft tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2017 Sep 1;140:170‐188.
76. Guo R, Ren Z, Bi H, Xu M, Cai L. Electrical and thermal conductivity of polylactic acid (PLA)‐based biocomposites by incorporation of
nano‐graphite fabricated with Fused deposition modeling. Polymers. 2019 Mar;11(3):549.
77. Caminero MÁ, Chacón JM, García‐Plaza E, Núñez PJ, Reverte JM, Becar JP. Additive manufacturing of PLA‐based composites using
fused filament fabrication: Effect of graphene nanoplatelet reinforcement on mechanical properties, dimensional accuracy and texture.
Polymers. 2019 May;11(5):799.
78. Korpela J, Kokkari A, Korhonen H, Malin M, Närhi T, Seppälä J. Biodegradable and bioactive porous scaffold structures prepared using
fused deposition modeling. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013 May;101(4):610‐619.
79. Serra T, Planell JA, Navarro M. High‐resolution PLA‐based composite scaffolds via 3‐D printing technology. Acta Biomater. 2013 Mar
1;9(3):5521‐5530.
80. Lam CX, Savalani MM, Teoh SH, Hutmacher DW. Dynamics of in vitro polymer degradation of polycaprolactone‐based scaffolds: accel-
erated versus simulated physiological conditions. Biomed Mater. 2008 Aug 8;3(3):034108.
81. Weng Z, Wang J, Senthil T, Wu L. Mechanical and thermal properties of ABS/montmorillonite nanocomposites for fused deposition
modeling 3D printing. Mater Des. 2016 Jul 15;102:276‐283.
82. Pilipovic A, Raos P, Sercer M. Experimental testing of quality of polymer parts produced by laminated object manufacturing‐ lom.
Tehnicki Vjesnik. 2011 Apr;18(2):253‐260.
SINGH ET AL. 11 of 13

83. Chung H, Das S. Functionally graded Nylon‐11/silica nanocomposites produced by selective laser sintering. Mater Sci Eng A. 2008 Jul
25;487(1–2):251‐257.
84. Wiria FE, Leong KF, Chua CK, Liu Y. Poly‐ε‐caprolactone/hydroxyapatite for tissue engineering scaffold fabrication via selective laser
sintering. Acta Biomater. 2007 Jan 1;3(1):1‐2.
85. Bharathan J, Yang Y. Polymer electroluminescent devices processed by inkjet printing: I. Polymer light‐emitting logo. Appl Phys Lett. 1998
May 25;72(21):2660‐2662.
86. Small WR, in het Panhuis M. Inkjet printing of transparent, electrically conducting single‐walled carbon‐nanotube composites. Small.
2007 Sep 3;3(9):1500‐1503.
87. Wu J, Yuan C, Ding Z, et al. Multi‐shape active composites by 3D printing of digital shape memory polymers. Sci Rep. 2016 Apr
13;6:24224.
88. Kokkinis D, Schaffner M, Studart AR. Multimaterial magnetically assisted 3D printing of composite materials. Nat Commun. 2015 Oct
23;6:8643.
89. Kim K, Zhu W, Qu X, et al. 3D optical printing of piezoelectric nanoparticle–polymer composite materials. ACS Nano. 2014 Jul
29;8(10):9799‐9806.
90. Leigh SJ, Bradley RJ, Purssell CP, Billson DR, Hutchins DA. A simple, low‐cost conductive composite material for 3D printing of elec-
tronic sensors. PLoS ONE. 2012 Nov 21;7(11):e49365.
91. Okwuosa TC, Stefaniak D, Arafat B, Isreb A, Wan KW, Alhnan MA. A lower temperature FDM 3D printing for the manufacture of
patient‐specific immediate release tablets. Pharm Res. 2016 Nov 1;33(11):2704‐2712.
92. Melocchi A, Parietti F, Maroni A, Foppoli A, Gazzaniga A, Zema L. Hot‐melt extruded filaments based on pharmaceutical grade polymers
for 3D printing by fused deposition modeling. Int J Pharm. 2016 Jul 25;509(1–2):255‐263.
93. Ravi AK, Deshpande A, Hsu KH. An in‐process laser localized pre‐deposition heating approach to inter‐layer bond strengthening in
extrusion based polymer additive manufacturing. J Manuf Process. 2016 Oct 1;24:179‐185.
94. Gong H, Snelling D, Kardel K, Carrano A. Comparison of stainless steel 316L parts made by FDM‐and SLM‐based additive manufacturing
processes. JOM. 2019 Mar 15;71(3):880‐885.
95. Plott J, Tian X, Shih AJ. Voids and tensile properties in extrusion‐based additive manufacturing of moisture‐cured silicone elastomer.
Addit Manuf. 2018 Aug 31;22:606‐617.
96. Turner BN, Strong R, Gold SA. A review of melt extrusion additive manufacturing processes: I. Process design and modeling. Rapid
Prototyping J. 2014;20:192‐204.
97. Mohamed OA, Masood SH, Bhowmik JL. Optimization of fused deposition modeling process parameters: a review of current research and
future prospects. Adv Manuf. 2015 Mar 1;3(1):42‐53.
98. Sanatgar RH, Campagne C, Nierstrasz V. Investigation of the adhesion properties of direct 3D printing of polymers and nanocomposites
on textiles: effect of FDM printing process parameters. Appl Surf Sci. 2017 May 1;403:551‐563.
99. Rosli NA, Hasan R, Alkahari MR, Tokoroyama T. Effect of process parameters on the geometrical quality of ABS polymer lattice struc-
ture. InProceedings of SAKURA Symposium on Mechanical Science and Engineering 2017 2017 Nov 10 (pp. 3‐5). Centre for Advanced
Research on Energy.
100. Chong L, Ramakrishna S, Singh S. A review of digital manufacturing‐based hybrid additive manufacturing processes. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol. 2018 Mar 1;95(5–8):2281‐2300.
101. Salmoria GV, Leite JL, Vieira LF, Pires AT, Roesler CR. Mechanical properties of PA6/PA12 blend specimens prepared by selective laser
sintering. Polym Test. 2012 May 1;31(3):411‐416.
102. Yan C, Hao L, Xu L, Shi Y. Preparation, characterisation and processing of carbon fibre/polyamide‐12 composites for selective laser
sintering. Compos Sci Technol. 2011 Nov 14;71(16):1834‐1841.
103. Bourell DL, Watt TJ, Leigh DK, Fulcher B. Performance limitations in polymer laser sintering. Phys Procedia. 2014 Jan 1;56:147‐156.
104. Singh S, Prakash C, Ramakrishna S. 3D Printing of polyether‐ether‐ketone for biomedical applications. Eur Polym J. 2019 Feb;26:x.
105. Brandhoff L, van den Driesche S, Lucklum F, Vellekoop MJ. Creation of hydrophilic microfluidic devices for biomedical application
through stereolithography. InBio‐MEMS and Medical Microdevices II 2015 Jun 1 (Vol. 9518, p. 95180D). International Society for Optics
and Photonics
106. Stansbury JW, Idacavage MJ. 3D printing with polymers: Challenges among expanding options and opportunities. Dent Mater. 2016 Jan
1;32(1):54‐64.
107. Bártolo PJ, Gibson I. History of stereolithographic processes. In: Stereolithography. Boston, MA: Springer; 2011:37‐56.
108. Maas J, Liu B, Hajela S, Huang Y, Gong X, Chappell WJ. Laser‐based layer‐by‐layer polymer stereolithography for high‐frequency appli-
cations. Proc IEEE. 2017 Apr;105(4):645‐654.
109. Leong KF, Chua CK, Ng YM. A study of stereolithography file errors and repair. Part 1. Generic solution. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 1996
Nov 1;12(6):407‐414.
110. Leong KF, Chua CK, Ng YM. A study of stereolithography file errors and repair. Part 2. Special cases. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 1996 Nov
1;12(6):415‐422.
12 of 13 SINGH ET AL.

111. Renap K, Kruth JP. Recoating issues in stereolithography. Rapid Prototyp J. 1995 Sep 1;1(3):4‐16.
112. Lynn‐Charney C, Rosen DW. Usage of accuracy models in stereolithography process planning. Rapid Prototyp J. 2000 Jun 1;6(2):77‐87.
113. Pan Y, Zhao X, Zhou C, Chen Y. Smooth surface fabrication in mask projection based stereolithography. J Manuf Process. 2012 Oct
1;14(4):460‐470.
114. Liou FW. Rapid prototyping and engineering applications: A toolbox for prototype development. Boca Raton, FL: Crc Press; 2007 Sep 26.
115. Kunwoo LEE. Principles of CAD/CAM/CAE Systems. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison – Wesley Longman Inc.; 1999 ISBN 0‐201‐
38036‐6.
116. Gibson I, Rosen DW, Stucker B. Additive Manufacturing Technologies. New York: Springer; 2014.
117. Calvert P. Inkjet printing for materials and devices. Chem Mater. 2001 Oct 15;13(10):3299‐3305.
118. Calvert P, Crockett R. Chemical solid free‐form fabrication: making shapes without molds. Chem Mater. 1997 Mar 18;9(3):650‐663.
119. Kawase T, Shimoda T, Newsome C, Sirringhaus H, Friend RH. Inkjet printing of polymer thin film transistors. Thin Solid Films. 2003
Aug 22;438:279‐287.
120. Li J, Ye F, Vaziri S, Muhammed M, Lemme MC, Östling M. Efficient inkjet printing of graphene. Adv Mater. 2013 Aug
7;25(29):3985‐3992.
121. Liu Y, Cui T, Varahramyan K. All‐polymer capacitor fabricated with inkjet printing technique. Solid State Electron. 2003 Sep
1;47(9):1543‐1548.
122. Wei X, Li D, Jiang W, et al. 3D printable graphene composite. Sci Rep. 2015 Jul 8;5:11181.
123. Roy TD, Simon JL, Ricci JL, Rekow ED, Thompson VP, Parsons JR. Performance of degradable composite bone repair products made via
three‐dimensional fabrication techniques. J Biomed Mater Res, Part A: An Official J Soc Biomat, The Japanese Soc Biomater, and The Aust
Soc Biomater and the Korean Soc Biomater. 2003;66(2):283‐291.
124. Taboas JM, Maddox RD, Krebsbach PH, Hollister SJ. Indirect solid free form fabrication of local and global porous, biomimetic and com-
posite 3D polymer‐ceramic scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2003 Jan 1;24(1):181‐194.
125. https://www.prodways.com/fr/material/pa12‐cf‐6500/
126. Kim SG, Kim HR. The recent tendency of fashion textiles by 3D printing. Fashion Textile Res J. 2018;20(2):117‐127.
127. Sun J, Peng Z, Yan L, Fuh JY, Hong GS. 3D food printing—an innovative way of mass customization in food fabrication. Int J
Bioprinting. 2015 Jul 1;1(1):27‐38.
128. Yunus DE, He R, Shi W, Kaya O, Liu Y. Short fiber reinforced 3d printed ceramic composite with shear induced alignment. Ceram Int.
2017 Oct 15;43(15):11766‐11772.
129. Lizardo BF, Vieira LM, Carlos Campos Rubio J, Panzera TH, Davim JP. An assessment of thermosetting infiltrate in powder‐based com-
posites made by additive manufacturing. J Thermoplast Compos Mater. 2019 Mar;53(7):873‐882.
130. Nadgorny M, Ameli A. Functional polymers and nanocomposites for 3D printing of smart structures and devices. ACS Appl Mater Inter-
faces. 2018 May 9;10(21):17489‐17507.
131. Huang Y, Leu MC, Mazumder J, Donmez A. Additive manufacturing: current state, future potential, gaps and needs, and recommenda-
tions. J Manuf Sci Eng. 2015 Feb 1;137(1):014001.

F U R T H E R RE A D I N G S
1. Lebedev SM, Gefle OS, Amitov ET, Zhuravlev DV, Berchuk DY, Mikutskiy EA. Mechanical properties of PLA‐based composites for fused
deposition modeling technology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2018 Jul 1;97(1–4):511‐518.
2. Kumar N, Jain PK, Tandon P, Pandey PM. Additive manufacturing of flexible electrically conductive polymer composites via CNC‐assisted
fused layer modeling process. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng. 2018 Apr 1;40(4):175.
3. Hwang S, Reyes EI, Moon KS, Rumpf RC, Kim NS. Thermo‐mechanical characterization of metal/polymer composite filaments and print-
ing parameter study for fused deposition modeling in the 3D printing process. J Electron Mater. 2015 Mar 1;44(3):771‐777.
4. Schantz JT, Brandwood A, Hutmacher DW, Khor HL, Bittner K. Osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal progenitor cells in computer
designed fibrin‐polymer‐ceramic scaffolds manufactured by fused deposition modeling. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2005 Sep 1;16(9):807‐819.
5. Dul S, Fambri L, Pegoretti A. Fused deposition modelling with ABS–graphene nanocomposites. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf. 2016 Jun
1;85:181‐191.
6. Tekinalp HL, Kunc V, Velez‐Garcia GM, et al. Highly oriented carbon fiber–polymer composites via additive manufacturing. Compos Sci
Technol. 2014 Dec 10;105:144‐150.
7. Postiglione G, Natale G, Griffini G, Levi M, Turri S. Conductive 3D microstructures by direct 3D printing of polymer/carbon nanotube
nanocomposites via liquid deposition modeling. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf. 2015 Sep 1;76:110‐114.
8. Foo CY, Lim HN, Mahdi MA, Wahid MH, Huang NM. Three‐dimensional printed electrode and its novel applications in electronic devices.
Sci Rep. 2018 May 9;8(1):7399.
SINGH ET AL. 13 of 13

9. Goodridge RD, Shofner ML, Hague RJ, et al. Processing of a Polyamide‐12/carbon nanofibre composite by laser sintering. Polym Test. 2011
Feb 1;30(1):94‐100.
10. Athreya SR, Kalaitzidou K, Das S. Mechanical and microstructural properties of Nylon‐12/carbon black composites: selective laser
sintering versus melt compounding and injection molding. Compos Sci Technol. 2011 Feb 28;71(4):506‐510.
11. Chung H, Das S. Processing and properties of glass bead particulate‐filled functionally graded Nylon‐11 composites produced by selective
laser sintering. Mater Sci Eng A. 2006 Nov 15;437(2):226‐234.
12. Li H, Song L, Sun J, Ma J, Shen Z. Dental ceramic prostheses by stereolithography‐based additive manufacturing: potentials and chal-
lenges. Adv Appl Ceram. 2019 Feb 17;118(1–2):30‐36.
13. Thavornyutikarn B, Tesavibul P, Sitthiseripratip K, et al. Porous 45S5 bioglass®‐based scaffolds using stereolithography: effect of partial
pre‐sintering on structural and mechanical properties of scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C. 2017 Jun 1;75:1281‐1288.
14. Wang X, Schmidt F, Hanaor D, Kamm PH, Li S, Gurlo A. Additive manufacturing of ceramics from preceramic polymers: a versatile
stereolithographic approach assisted by thiol‐ene click chemistry. Addit Manuf. 2019 May 1;27:80‐90.
15. Bustillos J, Montero‐Zambrano D, Loganathan A, Boesl B, Agarwal A. Stereolithography‐based 3D printed photosensitive polymer/boron
nitride nanoplatelets composites. Polym Compos. 2019 Jan;40(1):379‐388.
16. Sanders P, Young AJ, Qin Y, et al. Stereolithographic 3D printing of extrinsically self‐healing composites. Sci Rep. 2019;9:x.
17. Korhonen H, Sinh LH, Luong ND, et al. Fabrication of graphene‐based 3D structures by stereolithography. Physica status solidi (a). 2016
Apr;213(4):982‐985.
18. Klosterman D, Chartoff R, Graves G, Osborne N, Priore B. Interfacial characteristics of composites fabricated by laminated object
manufacturing. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf. 1998 Jan 1;29(9–10):1165‐1174.
19. Luong DX, Subramanian AK, Silva GA, et al. Laminated object manufacturing of 3D‐printed laser‐induced graphene foams. Adv Mater.
2018 Jul;30(28):1707416.
20. Wood V, Panzer MJ, Chen J, et al. Inkjet‐printed quantum dot–polymer composites for full‐color ac‐driven displays. Adv Mater. 2009 Jun
5;21(21):2151‐2155.
21. Tekin E, Smith PJ, Hoeppener S, et al. Inkjet printing of luminescent CdTe nanocrystal–polymer composites. Adv Funct Mater. 2007 Jan
5;17(1):23‐28.
22. Graf D, Burchard S, Crespo J, et al. Influence of Al2O3 nanoparticle addition on a UV cured polyacrylate for 3D inkjet printing. Polymers.
2019 Apr;11(4):633.
23. Chi K, Zhang Z, Xi J, et al. Freestanding graphene paper supported three‐dimensional porous graphene–polyaniline nanocomposite syn-
thesized by inkjet printing and in flexible all‐solid‐state supercapacitor. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2014 Sep 10;6(18):16312‐16319.

How to cite this article: Singh S., Ramakrishna S., and Berto F. 3D Printing of polymer composites: A short
review, Mat Design Process Comm. 2020;2:e97 https://doi.org/10.1002/mdp2.97