Additive Manufacturing’s Disappearing Cost Premium: What a Decade of Production Has Revealed

September, 2025 | Reading time: 5 min

In 2015, a new 3D printed hip implant entered the medical market—not as a replacement for all patients, but as a targeted solution for cases where bone quality was compromised. Engineered with a highly porous titanium lattice derived from actual bone scans, the implant offered exceptional osseointegration compared to traditional designs. At the time, additive manufacturing (AM) was still considered an emerging technology, often associated with high costs and niche applications. But 10 years later, this same implant has become a mainstream option—used in standard procedures and trusted by surgeons and hospitals alike.

The transformation from specialty products to standard offering reflects the broader evolution of AM itself. In contrast to traditional manufacturing technologies, where processes and economics tend to stabilize, AM remains dynamic. The underlying technology—direct metal laser solidification (DMLS), in this case, continues to improve, as does the ability of manufacturers to optimize speed, quality, and cost-efficiency. The result: an ongoing reduction in the cost-per part that redefines what is considered feasible for serial production.

From Specialty to Standard

Initially positioned as a premium product due to its advanced bone integration properties, 3D printed implants offered a significant functional advantage. Its additively manufactured lattice structure matched the geometry of bone, encouraging fusion that begins within weeks and can mimic the strength of natural bone. In contrast, thermal spray coatings applied to conventionally machined parts – still common in many implants, create porosity but lack the structural continuity and biological performance of AM-based designs.

Despite these benefits, AM produced implants tended to be limited by cost. But as 3D printing technology matured from first-generation single-laser systems to more advanced platforms like today’s dual-laser EOS M 290-2, and as manufacturers gained deeper experience with build setup, support strategies, powder handling, and postprocessing workflows, costs began to drop significantly. Even without switching to multi-laser systems, improvements in throughput, part quality, and scrap reduction helped shift the economics in a meaningful way.

Manufacturing Gains Beyond the Implant

One of AM’s key strengths is its ability to produce highly complex geometries in a single build operation, eliminating many of the labor-intensive steps required by traditional methods. The porous outer shell and solid structural core of the implant are printed together, forming a monolithic component. This removes the failure risk of delamination often seen in layered or coated implants and ensures long-term durability.

Repeatability and quality control also improved dramatically. Whereas thermal spray can be inconsistent and difficult to monitor at the microstructural level, DMLS enables precise control over pore size, distribution, and overall part geometry. AM parts printed today are expected to be identical to those produced years from now, regardless of the machine operator—thanks to tight process control and validated parameter sets.

Additionally, the labor demands of AM have steadily declined. While not fully “set it and forget it,” the unattended nature of DMLS 3D printing allows manufacturers to scale without a proportional increase in human intervention. With thoughtful optimization of postprocessing steps such as heat treatment, powder removal, and support detachment, AM becomes even more cost-effective over time.

The Economic Shift

The growing adoption of this once-specialized implant underscores a core lesson for all manufacturers exploring AM for production: the cost premium is fleeting, and typical of the early adoption phase of many technologies. In fact, it is often temporary, particularly when the product offers engineering and performance benefits that outweigh early cost challenges. As the AM-produced implants gained traction, hospitals began standardizing around it to reduce inventory complexity. Surgeons have also grown more comfortable selecting the 3D printed option for standard procedures, knowing it performs well and is now competitively priced.

All these cumulative shifts result in continuous improvement: In machine capability, in process development, and in user experience. While AM processes may still carry a higher upfront investment or longer learning curve than conventional methods, the payoff can be significant. In many cases, what begins as a high-end solution becomes the default choice as cost and production barriers fall away.

Looking Ahead

Additive manufacturing is not a one-size-fits-all solution. In fact, many AM-enabled assemblies still incorporate conventionally manufactured components where appropriate. But for the right applications – particularly those involving complex geometry, biologically inspired design, or performance-critical integration, AM delivers a value proposition that grows stronger over time.

A decade of AM has demonstrated that future-focused thinking pays off. When product teams’ factor in the likely improvements in cost and efficiency that AM can deliver over time, it opens the door to solutions that don’t have to remain niche. Instead, with the right strategy, today’s specialty part can become tomorrow’s standard.

Read more about these 3D printed implants being used for long-time EOS employee, Everlee DeWall’s dual hip replacement surgeries in our new case study.