Ceramic extrusion additive manufacturing (CEAM) uses ceramic pellets as feedstock instead of the usual filament. It is a widely adopted and prominent technology in the domain of additive manufacturing. This technique involves the sequential deposition of material in layers via a heated, movable bed. This material solidifies at a predetermined temperature as the base, and the dispensing head traverses a defined trajectory along the X, Y, and Z axes. Pellet-based 3D printing is more cost-effective than traditional filament printing. This process is ideal for large-scale projects, and offers a wide variety of ceramic material options, including alumina, zirconia, silica, and composites. Various factors, such as extrusion speed, nozzle diameter, nozzle and bed temperature, printing speed, orientation, layer thickness, infill density, and pattern, influence the quality of the final product in CEAM. Horizontal orientation enhances flexural strength, while vertical orientation improves hardness. Thinner layers and optimized flow rates result in higher density and superior mechanical properties. Ceramics are consolidated into dense, crack-free components by ultrafast high-temperature sintering and rapid radiation sintering. Technique such as extrusion and spark plasma sintering improves the flexibility of materials. Mechanical properties get enhanced by sintering additives. CEAM’s widespread appeal is due to its accessibility, material versatility, and suitability for rapid prototyping, custom manufacturing, and educational applications. Although this process provides certain benefits, it faces challenges related to dimensional accuracy, surface finish, the physical and mechanical properties of the printed object. The extrudability and shape fidelity, along with material compatibility, and the optimization of production speed are also significant challenges. These concerns can be fixed through the optimization of paste’s rheology and solids loading, the adoption of controlled drying and debinding schedules, and proper adjustment of printing parameters, including nozzle size, printing speed, and temperature, to minimize defects and improve density.
SireeshaMLeeJKiranAS, et al. A review on additive manufacturing and its way into the oil and gas industry. RSC Adv2018; 8(40): 22460–22468.
2.
FirooziAAFirooziAA. 3D printing in civil engineering: pioneering affordable housing solutions. J Civ Eng Urban2024; 14(1): 63–75.
3.
LuAWilliamsROManiruzzamanM. 3D printing of biologics—what has been accomplished to date?Drug Discovery Today2023; 29: 103823.
4.
MinJKMosadeghBDunhamS, et al. 3D printing applications in cardiovascular medicine. Academic Press, 2018.
5.
PathakKSaikiaRDasA, et al. 3D printing in biomedicine: advancing personalized care through additive manufacturing. Explor Med2023; 4(6): 1135–1167.
6.
WohlersTGornetTMostowN, et al. History of additive manufacturing. Social Science Research Network, 2016.
7.
LechnerCPervaizA. From invention to industry from a social movement perspective: the emergence of the 3D printing industry. J Innov Entrep2020; 9(1): 6.
8.
ShahrubudinNLeeTCRamlanR. An overview on 3D printing technology: technological, materials, and applications. Procedia Manuf2019; 35(35): 1286–1296.
9.
SheshadriRNagarajMLakshmikanthanA, et al. Experimental investigation of selective laser melting parameters for higher surface quality and microhardness properties: Taguchi and super ranking concept approaches. J Mater Res Technol2021; 14: 2586–2600.
10.
SteenhuisHJ. The business of additive manufacturing: 3D printing and the 4th Industrial Revolution. Routledge, 2023.
11.
OluwajobiAOKolawoleFO. Design of a fused filament fabrication (FFF) 3D-printer. Niger J Technol2021; 40(2): 252–260.
12.
ManeroASmithPSparkmanJ, et al. Implementation of 3D printing technology in the field of prosthetics: past, present, and future. Int J Environ Res Public Health2019; 16(9): 1641.
13.
HouYCuiXQinZ, et al. Three-dimensional bioprinting of artificial blood vessel: process, bioinks, and challenges. Int J Bioprint2023; 9(4): 740.
WaltherG. Printing insecurity? The security implications of 3D-printing of weapons. Sci Eng Ethics2014; 21(6): 1435–1445.
16.
HagerIGolonkaAPutanowiczR. 3D printing of buildings and building components as the future of sustainable construction?. Procedia Eng2016; 151(151): 292–299.
17.
HaleemAJavaidMKhanRH, et al. 3D printing applications in bone tissue engineering. J Clin Orthop Trauma2020; 11: S118–S124.
18.
NazirAGokcekayaOMd Masum BillahK, et al. Multi-material additive manufacturing: a systematic review of design, properties, applications, challenges, and 3D printing of materials and cellular metamaterials. Mater Des2023; 226: 111661.
19.
KantarosADiegelOPiromalisD, et al. 3D printing: making an innovative technology widely accessible through makerspaces and outsourced services. Mater Today Proc2021; 49: 2712–2723.
ClemensFSarrafFBorzìA, et al. Material extrusion additive manufacturing of advanced ceramics: towards the production of large components. J Eur Ceram Soc2023; 43(7): 2752–2760.
22.
SpinaRMorfiniL. Material extrusion additive manufacturing of ceramics: a review on filament-based process. Materials2024; 17(11): 2779.
23.
Romanczuk-RuszukESztorchBPakułaD, et al. 3D printing ceramics materials for direct extrusion process. Ceramics2023; 6(1): 364–385.
24.
BhandariSVeteškaPVajpayeeG, et al. Material-extrusion based additive manufacturing of BaTiO3 ceramics: from filament production to sintered properties. Addit Manuf2024; 88: 104238.
25.
SunHZouBQuanT, et al. Multi-material ceramic hybrid additive manufacturing based on vat photopolymerization and material extrusion compound process. Addit Manuf2025; 97: 104627.
26.
AzamiMSiahsaraniAHadianA, et al. Laser powder bed fusion of alumina/Fe–Ni ceramic matrix particulate composites impregnated with a polymeric resin. J Mater Res Technol2023; 24: 3133–3144.
27.
UllahAShahMAliZ, et al. Additive manufacturing of ceramics via the laser powder bed fusion process. Int J Appl Ceram Technol2025; 22(3): e15087.
28.
AhmadiMTabarySBRahmatabadiD, et al. Review of selective laser melting of magnesium alloys: advantages, microstructure and mechanical characterizations, defects, challenges, and applications. J Mater Res Technol2022; 19: 1537–1562.
29.
ZoccaAColomboPGomesCM, et al. Additive manufacturing of ceramics: issues, potentialities, and opportunities. J Am Ceram Soc2015; 98(7): 1983–2001.
30.
ChenZLiZLiJ, et al. 3D printing of ceramics: a review. J Eur Ceram Soc2019; 39(4): 661–687.
31.
RaneKBarriereTStranoM. Role of elongational viscosity of feedstock in extrusion-based additive manufacturing of powder-binder mixtures. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2020; 107(11): 4389–4402.
32.
KarimiARahmatabadiDBaghaniM. Direct pellet three-dimensional printing of polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate for a greener future. Polymers2024; 16(2): 267.
33.
WangWGaoXZhangL, et al. Large-scale material extrusion-based additive manufacturing of short carbon fibre-reinforced silicon carbide ceramic matrix composite preforms. Virtual Phys Prototyp2023; 18(1): e2245801.
34.
LiWArmaniAMartinA, et al. Extrusion-based additive manufacturing of functionally graded ceramics. J Eur Ceram Soc2021; 41(3): 2049–2057.
35.
StillerJHNestlerDUhlmannS, et al. Additive manufacturing of short fiber oxide ceramic matrix composite: process analysis and material properties. Int J Appl Ceram Technol2024; 21(6): 3863–3875.
36.
HadianADuckekJParrilliA, et al. Additive manufacturing of fiber-reinforced zirconia-toughened alumina ceramic matrix composites by material extrusion-based technology. Adv Eng Mater2024; 26(18): 2302158.
37.
ZhaoGMaGFengJ, et al. Nonplanar slicing and path generation methods for robotic additive manufacturing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2018; 96(9): 3149–3159.
38.
EyercioğluÖAladağM. Non-planar toolpath for large scale additive manufacturing. Int J 3D Print Technol Digit Ind2021; 5(3): 477–487.
39.
RaneKStranoM. A comprehensive review of extrusion-based additive manufacturing processes for rapid production of metallic and ceramic parts. Adv Manuf2019; 7(2): 155–173.
40.
StranoMRaneKVangosaFB, et al. Extrusion of metal powder-polymer mixtures: melt rheology and process stability. J Mater Process Technol2019; 273: 116250.
41.
KuklaCCanoSKaylaniD, et al. Debinding behaviour of feedstock for material extrusion additive manufacturing of zirconia. Powder Metall2019; 62(3): 196–204.
42.
YuTZhangZLiuQ, et al. Extrusion-based additive manufacturing of yttria-partially-stabilized zirconia ceramics. Ceram Int2020; 46(4): 5020–5027.
43.
RaneKPetròSStranoM. Evolution of porosity and geometrical quality through the ceramic extrusion additive manufacturing process stages. Addit Manuf2020; 32: 101038.
44.
BacaDAhmadR. The impact on the mechanical properties of multi-material polymers fabricated with a single mixing nozzle and multi-nozzle systems via fused deposition modeling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2020; 106(9): 4509–4520.
45.
CadiouTDemolyFGomesS. A hybrid additive manufacturing platform based on fused filament fabrication and direct ink writing techniques for multi-material 3D printing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2021; 114(11): 3551–3562.
46.
SingamneniSBeheraMPTruongD, et al. Direct extrusion 3D printing for a softer PLA-based bio-polymer composite in pellet form. J Mater Res Technol2021; 15: 936–949.
47.
RaneKFaridMAHassanW, et al. Effect of printing parameters on mechanical properties of extrusion-based additively manufactured ceramic parts. Ceram Int2021; 47(9): 12189–12198.
48.
MontalbanoGCaloreARVitale-BrovaroneC. Extrusion 3D printing of a multiphase collagen-based material: an optimized strategy to obtain biomimetic scaffolds with high shape fidelity. J Appl Polym Sci2023; 140(10): e53593.
49.
PapazetisGVosniakosGC. Mapping of deposition-stable and defect-free additive manufacturing via material extrusion from minimal experiments. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2019; 100(9): 2207–2219.
50.
Bakrani BalaniSMokhtarianHSalmiT, et al. An investigation of the influence of viscosity and printing parameters on the extrudate geometry in the material extrusion process. Polymers2023; 15(9): 2202.
51.
HabibMAElsersawyRKhondokerMA. Pellet-based extrusion additive manufacturing of lightweight parts using inflatable hollow extrudates. J Manuf Mater Process2025; 9(2): 37.
52.
BrenkenBBarocioEFavaloroA, et al. Development and validation of extrusion deposition additive manufacturing process simulations. Addit Manuf2019; 25: 218–226.
53.
RaaschJIveyMAldrichD, et al. Characterization of polyurethane shape memory polymer processed by material extrusion additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf2015; 8: 132–141.
54.
SerdecznyMPComminalRPedersenDB, et al. Experimental validation of a numerical model for the strand shape in material extrusion additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf2018; 24: 145–153.
55.
SerdecznyMPComminalRPedersenDB, et al. Numerical simulations of the mesostructure formation in material extrusion additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf2019; 28: 419–429.
56.
AltıparmakSCYardleyVAShiZ, et al. Extrusion-based additive manufacturing technologies: state of the art and future perspectives. J Manuf Process2022; 83: 607–636.
57.
ThakareKJerpsethLPeiZ, et al. Green bioprinting with layer-by-layer photo-crosslinking: a designed experimental investigation on shape fidelity and cell viability of printed constructs. J Manuf Mater Process2022; 6(2): 45.
58.
HurHParkYJKimDH, et al. Material extrusion for ceramic additive manufacturing with polymer-free ceramic precursor binder. Mater Des2022; 221: 110930.
59.
M’barkiABocquetLStevensonA. Linking rheology and printability for dense and strong ceramics by direct ink writing. Sci Rep2017; 7(1): 6017.
60.
del-Mazo-BarbaraLGinebraMP. Rheological characterisation of ceramic inks for 3D direct ink writing: a review. J Eur Ceram Soc2021; 41(16): 18–33.
61.
SchwabALevatoRD’EsteM, et al. Printability and shape fidelity of bioinks in 3D bioprinting. Chem Rev2020; 120(19): 11028–11055.
62.
LiuYBaiWChengX, et al. Effects of printing layer thickness on mechanical properties of 3D-printed custom trays. J Prosthet Dent2021; 126(5): 671.e1–e7.
63.
ShahzadQAbbasNAkbarM, et al. Influence of print speed and nozzle diameter on the fiber alignment in 3D printed ultra-high-performance concrete. Front Mater2024; 11: 1355647.
64.
TheismannEMKepplerJKOwenM, et al. Modelling the effect of process parameters on the wet extrusion and spheronisation of high-loaded nicotinamide pellets using a quality by design approach. Pharmaceutics2019; 11(4): 154.
65.
FinkeBHesselbachJSchüttA, et al. Influence of formulation parameters on the freeform extrusion process of ceramic pastes and resulting product properties. Addit Manuf2020; 32: 101005.
66.
PivarMGregor-SvetecDMuckD. Effect of printing process parameters on the shape transformation capability of 3D printed structures. Polymers2021; 14(1): 117.
67.
TangSYangLLiG, et al. 3D printing of highly-loaded slurries via layered extrusion forming: parameters optimization and control. Addit Manuf2019; 28: 546–553.
68.
AngXTeyJYYeoWH, et al. A review on metallic and ceramic material extrusion method: materials, rheology, and printing parameters. J Manuf Process2023; 90: 28–42.
69.
GuidettiXMingardNCruz-OliverR, et al. Force controlled printing for material extrusion additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf2024; 89: 104297.
70.
ZhangJSerraMElizaldeS, et al. Additive manufacturing of sensor prototype based on 3D-extrusion-printed zirconia ceramics. Ceram Int2024; 50(11): 20088–20097.
71.
MorfiniLMengFBerettaM, et al. Material extrusion additive manufacturing of zirconia: from filament characterisation to Weibull statistics. Rapid Prototyp J2024; 30(5): 919–927.
72.
UlkirOErtugrulIErsoyS, et al. The effects of printing temperature on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed acrylonitrile butadiene styrene. Appl Sci2024; 14(8): 3376.
73.
PellegriniALavecchiaFGuerraMG. Additive manufacturing of copper parts using extrusion and sinter-based technology: evaluation of the influence of printing parameters and debinding method. Rapid Prototyp J2024; 30(7): 1451–1461.
74.
EvertonSKHirschMStravroulakisP, et al. Review of in-situ process monitoring and in-situ metrology for metal additive manufacturing. Mater Des2016; 95: 431–445.
75.
AbouelNourYGuptaN. Assisted defect detection by in-process monitoring of additive manufacturing using optical imaging and infrared thermography. Addit Manuf2023; 67: 103483.
76.
GrassoMColosimoBM. Process defects and in situ monitoring methods in metal powder bed fusion: a review. Meas Sci Technol2017; 28(4): 044005.
77.
NurhudanAISupriadiSWhulanzaY, et al. Additive manufacturing of metallic based on extrusion process: a review. J Manuf Process2021; 66: 228–237.
78.
SilvainJFGiffordDLFourcadeS, et al. Study on debinding and sintering conditions in extrusion-based additive manufacturing of 316L and 316L+ Cu. Metals2023; 13(11): 1858.
79.
BhandariSManiereCSedonaF, et al. Ultra-rapid debinding and sintering of additively manufactured ceramics by ultrafast high-temperature sintering. J Eur Ceram Soc2024; 44(1): 328–340.
80.
SinghGMissiaenJMBouvardD, et al. Additive manufacturing of 17–4 PH steel using metal injection molding feedstock: analysis of 3D extrusion printing, debinding and sintering. Addit Manuf2021; 47: 102287.
81.
de SeijasMOBardenhagenAPambaguianL, et al. Laser debinding of parts produced through material extrusion additive manufacturing. J Manuf Process2023; 88: 1–11.
82.
VetterJHuberFWachterS, et al. Development of a material extrusion additive manufacturing process of 1.2083 steel comprising FFF printing, solvent and thermal debinding and sintering. Procedia CIRP2022; 113: 341–346.
83.
CanoSGonzalez-GutierrezJSapkotaJ, et al. Additive manufacturing of zirconia parts by fused filament fabrication and solvent debinding: selection of binder formulation. Addit Manuf2019; 26: 117–128.
84.
BankapalliNKGuptaVSaxenaP, et al. Filament fabrication and subsequent additive manufacturing, debinding, and sintering for extrusion-based metal additive manufacturing and their applications: a review. Compos B Eng2023; 264: 110915.
85.
LotfizareiZMostafapourABarariA, et al. Overview of debinding methods for parts manufactured using powder material extrusion. Addit Manuf2023; 61: 103335.
86.
HeXXuJHeL, et al. Effects of the sintering process on Al2O3 composite ceramics fabricated using material extrusion and photo-polymerization combined process. Crystals2023; 13(12): 1679.
87.
GalottaASglavoVM. The cold sintering process: a review on processing features, densification mechanisms and perspectives. J Eur Ceram Soc2021; 41(16): 1–7.
88.
Alemán-CórdovaSBCeja-CárdenasLMéndez-GarcíaJC, et al. Densification of silicon nitride powder by spark plasma extrusion. Ceram Int2021; 47(6): 7966–7973.
89.
AllenAJMaierRAZhangF, et al. In situ microstructure characterization of potassium di-phosphate (KDP) densification during cold sintering. Appl Sci2022; 12(20): 10493.
90.
ZhangKHeRDingG, et al. Effects of fine grains and sintering additives on stereolithography additive manufactured Al2O3 ceramic. Ceram Int2021; 47(2): 2303–2310.
91.
HintonJBasuDMirgkizoudiM, et al. Hybrid additive manufacturing of precision engineered ceramic components. Rapid Prototyp J2019; 25(6): 1061–1068.
92.
HoferAKKocjanABermejoR. High-strength lithography-based additive manufacturing of ceramic components with rapid sintering. Addit Manuf2022; 59: 103141.
93.
YuTZhuXYuH, et al. Material extrusion-based additive manufacturing of zirconia toughened alumina: machinability, mechanical properties and biocompatibility. J Manuf Process2023; 94: 120–132.
94.
VisputeMKumarNTaufikM, et al. Improving surface finish of extrusion based additive manufactured parts using novel triangle-based toolpath approach. Int J Interact Des Manuf2024; 18(1): 433–452.
95.
LakhdarYTuckCBinnerJ, et al. Additive manufacturing of advanced ceramic materials. Prog Mater Sci2021; 116: 100736.
96.
LiWGhazanfariAMcMillenD, et al. Characterization of zirconia specimens fabricated by ceramic on-demand extrusion. Ceram Int2018; 44(11): 12245–12252.
97.
LiWLeuMC. Material extrusion based ceramic additive manufacturing. In: BourellDLFrazierWKuhnH, et al. (eds.) Additive manufacturing processes. ASM International, 2020, pp.97–111.
98.
JasikKKluczyńskiJMiedzińskaD, et al. Comparison of additively manufactured polymer-ceramic parts obtained via different technologies. Materials2024; 17(1): 240.
99.
ZhangKMengQQuZ, et al. A review of defects in vat photopolymerization additive-manufactured ceramics: characterization, control, and challenges. J Eur Ceram Soc2024; 44(3): 1361–1384.
100.
DeckersJVleugelsJKruthJP. Additive manufacturing of ceramics: a review. J Ceram Sci Technol2014; 5(4): 245–260.
101.
TravitzkyNBonetADermeikB, et al. Additive manufacturing of ceramic-based materials. Adv Eng Mater2014; 16(6): 729–754.
102.
ZhaoDBiGChenJ, et al. A critical review of direct laser additive manufacturing ceramics. Int J Miner Metall Mater2024; 31(12): 2607–2626.
103.
PelzJSKuNMeyersMA, et al. Additive manufacturing of structural ceramics: a historical perspective. J Mater Res Technol2021; 15: 670–695.
104.
WangYWangZYuX, et al. Predicting dimensional deviation for sintering-induced shrinkage of Al2O3 ceramics manufactured by vat photopolymerization: using convolutional neural network. Mater Today Commun2023; 37: 107309.
105.
WuXTengJJiX, et al. Research progress of the defects and innovations of ceramic vat photopolymerization. Addit Manuf2023; 65: 103441.
106.
ZhangKMengQZhangX, et al. Quantitative characterization of defects in stereolithographic additive manufactured ceramic using X-ray computed tomography. J Mater Sci Technol2022; 118: 144–157.
107.
WilbigJde OliveiraFBObatonAF, et al. Defect detection in additively manufactured lattices. Open Ceram2020; 3: 100020.
108.
UtschDBruendlPFrankeJ, et al. Mechanical qualification and microstructural analysis of alumina produced by material extrusion. Mater Sci Eng A2023; 883: 145456.
109.
ZhangKMengQCaiN, et al. Effects of solid loading on stereolithographic additive manufactured ZrO2 ceramic: a quantitative defect study by X-ray computed tomography. Ceram Int2021; 47(17): 24353–24359.
110.
DemarbaixAJusteEVerlaineT, et al. Investigating defect detection in advanced ceramic additive manufacturing using active thermography. NDT2024; 2(4): 504–518.
111.
FanZTanQKangC, et al. Advances and challenges in direct additive manufacturing of dense ceramic oxides. Int J Extreme Manuf2024; 6(5): 052004.
112.
LiuZMaCChangZ, et al. Advances in crack formation mechanism and inhibition strategy for ceramic additive manufacturing. J Eur Ceram Soc2023; 43(12): 5078–5098.
113.
KangHZHuCT. Swelling behavior in reactive sintering of Fe–Al mixtures. Mater Chem Phys2004; 88(2–3): 264–272.
114.
ScimeLBeuthJ. Using machine learning to identify in-situ melt pool signatures indicative of flaw formation in a laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing process. Addit Manuf2019; 25: 151–165.
115.
DadkhahMTullianiJMSabooriA, et al. Additive manufacturing of ceramics: advances, challenges, and outlook. J Eur Ceram Soc2023; 43(15): 6635–6664.
116.
WuestTWeimerDIrgensC, et al. Machine learning in manufacturing: advantages, challenges, and applications. Prod Manuf Res2016; 4(1): 23–45.
