The advent of 3D printing technology has revolutionized manufacturing processes across various industries, offering unprecedented design freedom and customization capabilities. This study explores the critical interplay between polymers, precision, and surface topography in 3D printed structures. We investigate how different polymer materials, such as thermoplastics, elastomers, and composites, influence the dimensional accuracy and surface characteristics of printed objects. Through a series of experiments and analyses, we evaluate the effects of print parameters—such as layer height, print speed, and temperature—on the final quality of the printed surfaces.

We employ advanced measurement techniques, including scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and profilometry, to assess the surface roughness and topographical features of the printed specimens. Our findings reveal that the choice of polymer significantly affects both the precision of the prints and the resultant surface texture. Furthermore, we discuss how surface roughness can impact functional properties, such as adhesion, wear resistance, and aesthetic quality, emphasizing the importance of selecting appropriate materials and optimizing print settings to achieve desired outcomes.

Ultimately, this research contributes to the understanding of how polymer characteristics can be harnessed to enhance the performance and application of 3D printed structures, paving the way for innovations in fields such as biomedical engineering, aerospace, and consumer goods.

3D printing, polymers, precision

Charles Bell,Maintaining and Troubleshooting Your 3D Printer, Springer Sci-ence+Business Media New York, 2014.

Barry Berman, 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution, Business Horizons (2012) 55, 155—162.

David Espalin & Danny W. Muse & Eric MacDonald & Ryan B. Wicker, 3D Printing multifunctionality: structures with electronics, Int J Adv. Manuf. Technol. (2014) 72:963–978.

Robert Bogue, (2013) "3D printing: the dawn of a new era in manufacturing?", As-sembly Automation, Vol. 33 Issue: 4, pp. 307-311.

Stevanovic, S., Chavanne, P., Braissant, O., Pieles, U., and Gruner, P. (2013). Im-provement of Mechanical Properties of 3d Printed Hydroxyapatite Scaffolds by Polymer-ic Infiltration. Bioceram Dev Appl S, 1, 2.

Kern R., 3-D Printed Implants Hit The Market, Pave The Way For More Personalized Devices, The Gray Sheet, 39, Nov 4, 2013, Retrieved 12/06/2016 fromhttp://tissuesys.com/trs_media/publications/The_Gray_Sheet_3D_Printer.pdf.

Ahn, S. H., Montero, M., Odell, D., Roundy, S., and Wright, P. K. (2002). Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 8(4), 248-257.

Aitor Cazón, Paz Morer, Luis Matey, “PolyJet technology for product prototyping: Tensile strength and surface roughness properties”, Journal of Engineering Manufac-ture, 228, pp1664-1675, 2014.

Adam E Jakus, Alexandra L Rutz and Ramille N Shah, Advancing the field of 3D bi-omaterial printing, Biomed. Mater. 11 (2016).

Hutmacher, D. W., Schantz, T., Zein, I., Ng, K. W., Teoh, S. H., and Tan,K. C. (2001). Mechanical properties and cell cultural response of polycaprolactone scaffolds designed and fabricated via fused deposition modeling. Journal of biomedical materials research, 55(2), 203-216.

Vince Cahill, “A Very Brief History of Industrial Inkjet Printing”, ScreenWeb, posted Wed Oct 28, 2015, downloaded 6/6/17 fromhttp://www.screenweb.com/content/a-very-brief-history-industrial-inkjet-printing?page=0,3-.WExU68n_o1g.

Groth, C., Kravitz, N. D., Jones, P. E., Graham, J. W., and Redmond, W. R. (2014). Three-dimensional printing technology. J Clin. Orthod., 48(8), 475-485.

Mavrogenis, A. F., Dimitriou, R., Parvizi, J., & Babis, G. C. (2009). Biology of implant osseointegration. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact, 9(2), 61-71.

Novaes Jr, A. B., Souza, S. L. S. D., Barros, R. R. M. D., Pereira, K. K. Y., Iezzi, G., & Piattelli, A. (2010). Influence of implant surfaces on osseointegration. Brazilian Dental Journal, 21(6), 471-481.