Additive manufacturing in dentistry is maturing, but not uniformly. A new study from Additive Manufacturing Research (AMR) charts a market in which low-cost LCD vendors are moving impressive unit volumes while some suppliers still command a disproportionate share of revenue. It’s a two-speed system: diffusion at the desktop, monetisation in the validated stack.
Scott Dunham, AMR’s vice-president of research and lead author, describes the firm’s approach as hybrid, “bottom-up modelling… beginning at the level of the companies supplying the key print technology,” followed by “top-down inputs” to “dial in” where needed. The workflow mirrors the value chain: hardware installed base, resulting materials demand, and then print services. It’s a pragmatic way to follow where value actually accrues.
A shifting power map
AMR’s report separates unit leaders from revenue leaders, useful, because they’re not the same. Volume growth at the low end is expanding the installed base and training users; revenue concentrates around vendors that bind hardware to validated materials, software and service. Stack ownership still beats box shipping.
Geography will add fresh tension. Asked who might disrupt the revenue rankings, Dunham points to Asia: the “dental care gap is larger,” and new providers may “integrate digital and 3D printing from the get-go,” rather than grafting tools onto legacy workflows. In the West, corporate dentistry is the counterweight. Consolidation is “less government controlled,” he notes, and 3D printing is increasingly used “as a differentiator and scale production opportunity.” Expect both bottom-up adoption and top-down procurement to move the needle—often at the same time.
Ceramics creep, metals plateau
The report’s most consequential call is understated: ceramics are edging toward production. Dunham ties “readiness” chiefly to regulatory approvals of Class II materials and to focused, indication-specific systems, “one-off crown printing” platforms among them. The implication is less a single technology leap and more a steady broadening of validated workflows.
What does that mean for metal powder bed fusion? “Production volumes for most metal restorations/devices [are] mostly flat going forward,” Dunham says. Metal retains room to grow as labs digitise, but some cannibalisation is likely, even in workhorses such as removable partial dentures, as monolithic AM dentures and other non-metal routes mature. The portfolio prompt for labs and OEMs is clear: defend metal where it is mission-critical; lean into ceramic-centric workflows where regulation, materials and throughput now align.
Chairside, but measured
Manufacturing on Demand
On in-office printing, AMR’s view is disciplined rather than breathless. Past experience with subtractive chairside systems offers a template: efficiency frees capacity; total case volumes rise; and labs still “go up some because everything got more efficient and nobody can do it all,” Dunham says. As for accelerants, he flags targeted, validated systems—“a ‘crown printer’ using Class II,” citing SprintRay’s MIDAS concept—as potential nudges rather than step-changes. Adoption is proceeding at a “fairly steady pace.”
For labs, the lesson is not apocalypse but repositioning. Clinics will increasingly do something in-house; the “something” will creep up in value as workflows simplify and validate. Labs that specialise, owning design, tricky indications, multi-material integration, and compliance—should fare better than labs reliant on commodity volume alone.
Software: central, under-discussed
One of AMR’s more important signals is that software is the largest revenue segment across dental AM. That squares with what practitioners see: the economics live in validated CAD/CAM pipelines, nesting and scheduling, DICOM-to-model tooling, QA/traceability, and increasingly AI-assisted design. The report’s structure keeps the focus on hardware and materials, but the revenue mix suggests where competitive moats are deepening.
Read the trendlines
Taken together, the trendlines are coherent:
Stack economics: Vendors that couple hardware to validated resins/ceramics, software, and service contracts will protect revenue share even as unit prices compress.
Materials shift: Class II ceramic momentum plus flat metal volumes points to careful portfolio rebalancing.
Channel evolution: Chairside will be additive to labs in the near term; medium-term impact depends on how quickly indication-specific systems expand their approved use.
AMR’s full study goes further, company-level estimates, regional splits, and the comparative exhibits that turn generalities into decisions. Readers who need the drill-down on vendors, materials trajectories and chairside vs lab economics will find those details there.
3DPI readers can get a 25% discount on the report, just enter the code “3DPI25” to claim.
Join us at AMA: Healthcare where Scott Dunham will provide further insights into 3D Printing for Dentistry.
You might also like:
USask Researchers Develop 3D Printed Lung Model for Better Disease Treatment: Building a More Realistic Lung Model
* This article is reprinted from 3D Printing Industry. If you are involved in infringement, please contact us to delete it.
Author: Michael Petch
Leave A Comment