Download White Paper

Would you like to receive special offers, product updates, and event news from 3D Systems? By clicking "Yes", you agree to receive follow-up email or phone communications from 3D Systems or our partners. You can also choose to opt out of communications at any time. Please click here to view our Privacy Policy or click here to manage your Preferences.


Medical devices must be able to maintain all, or a high percentage, of their mechanical properties after going through standard sterilization methods. However, this has not always been the case for traditional additive manufacturing (AM) materials, nor has information been available on the effects of common sterilization methods on AM materials.  

3D Systems understands the importance of having thorough data to effectively match a material to an application. In our white paper, “Common Sterilization Methods and 3D Systems’ Plastic 3D Printing Materials,” we share how our healthcare materials responded to autoclave, EtO, novel gas, gamma, and e-beam methods of sterilization. The information and data provide post-sterilization comparisons to non-sterilized control samples for dimensional, mechanical, biocompatibility, and color fastness characteristics for the following materials and platforms:

Figure 4® Standalone – Figure 4 Technology 

  • Figure 4® Tough 60C White  
  • Figure 4®Rigid White  
  • Figure 4® MED-WHT 10  
  • Figure 4® MED-AMB 10  
  • Figure 4® PRO-BLK 10  

ProX® SLS 6100 - Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) 

  • DuraForm® ProX® PA 

ProJet MJP® 2500 - MultiJet Printing (MJP) 

  • VisiJet® M2R-WHT 

The test data in this paper is intended to help you classify 3D Systems’ polymer materials as production-capable, clinical trial-capable, or appropriate for functional prototyping based on the performance requirements of your application.