Podiatrist Jordan Ryder says he has printed more than 5,000 pairs of 3D printed orthotics in TPU, and has summed up what he learned in seven points in a LinkedIn post. His central argument is that material choice, slicing settings and the shoe matter more than printer price. These are one practitioner’s experiences, not published trial results.
What material does he use for 3D printed orthotics?
Ryder says his practice began with mostly 95A TPU and has gradually moved more of its work to foaming TPU. He describes it as softer and closer to traditional EVA, with an initial patient response that is “almost always really good”, and says it grinds cleanly, holds up well and looks sharp.
Why does slicing matter so much?
According to Ryder, controlling density in different regions of one device allows an area to be made firmer or softer without changing material. When slicing is dialled in, he says multi-material printing is unnecessary, because one material on a printer costing a third as much can print in a quarter of the time. He also says slicing is where consistency comes from, and that the main challenge for clinics he has helped to start is repeating a good result rather than achieving one good print. Poor settings often end in an extruder or hot end clog, which he says can discourage people from printing at all.
Pressure data, in-house design and the shoe
Ryder tests slicing and design changes using a Zebris treadmill and Pedar in-shoe pressure measurement. He says this is not required to print good orthotics, but it gives more confidence that changes do what was intended. He also argues that designing devices yourself improves outcomes because it forces the clinician to understand what each device is asked to do, and says his practice uses LutraCAD B.V. software for the range of options it offers. He calls the shoe the third pillar of the outcome and says orthotic design should not start without knowing the shoe.
Does the printer matter?
Ryder says the gap between a $200 printer and a $30,000 system is smaller than most expect. He says the type of printer is more important, and that belt printers such as the Layerloop and IdeaFormer allow autonomous printing, which must be weighed against the print quality of other machines.
IMEA CPO Perspective
For CPOs in the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia and South Asia, the practical message is that digital orthotic production may depend more on process control and design skills than on expensive hardware. That matters where imported custom devices are costly or slow to arrive, and where clinics are weighing a first printer. The limits are clear, though. The account gives no published outcome data, the clinic’s location and patient mix are not stated, and foot orthoses are only one part of O&P work. Regional clinics would still need to check filament supply, printer maintenance, software costs and staff training before relying on in-house printing.
Related coverage on IMEA CPO includes TPE vs TPU: what flexible 3D printing materials mean for orthotics, why post-processing matters as much as the printer and the O&P 3D Printing News category.
Suggested hyperlinks / sources
- Jordan Ryder on LinkedIn (source of the post)
- LutraCAD B.V. on LinkedIn
- IMEA CPO: TPE vs TPU
- IMEA CPO: O&P 3D Printing News