A DMLS orthopedic component may use metal additive because its lattice, internal passage or overall geometry is difficult to produce efficiently by machining alone. That does not mean every surface should remain in the printed condition. The useful sourcing decision is which geometry belongs in the build and which critical features need a controlled downstream operation. Making that distinction before quoting keeps the additive build, machining plan and final part requirements connected.

Separate printed geometry from controlled interfaces

Lab Ready lists DMLS and SLM for complex titanium and cobalt-chrome parts, including porous structures and topology-driven components. The same metal 3D printing capability also identifies mating, threaded, bearing and inspection features as candidates for post-machining. Those are the features to review first because the drawing may require a different final condition than the surrounding printed geometry. Mark them clearly instead of asking the supplier to infer which surfaces control fit or inspection.

This is not a choice between an additive part and a machined part. It is one manufacturing route with different operations assigned to different features. The printed build can establish the complex body. A coordinated CNC machining, EDM or grinding step can then address the features that the drawing identifies for separate control. If DMLS and CNC machining are both still credible starting routes for the part, DMLS vs. CNC machining for orthopedic parts covers how to make that earlier call.

Plan machining allowance and final finish before the build

Machining allowance, material selection and final finish should be reviewed together before manufacturing begins. Start with the exact alloy and required condition, then identify the datums, interfaces, threads and inspection features that govern the downstream work. The goal is not to prescribe an operation from the article. It is to give the manufacturing review enough information to select and sequence the available processes around the drawing.

Surface requirements belong in the same review. Lab Ready coordinates options such as polishing, bead blasting and other specified surface-finishing processes, but the needed finish must come from the application and approved specification. A general request for a smooth or finished part does not replace a defined surface callout or acceptance requirement.

Quote the complete route, not only the print

The RFQ should include the CAD model, controlled drawing, exact material callout, quantity, final finish, inspection requirements and target date. It should also identify mating parts or interfaces that matter to the evaluation. If the additive process itself is still undecided, the related DMLS versus SLM guide explains the earlier process-selection question; this post begins after metal additive is already a credible route.

Use the orthopedic part RFQ checklist to assemble the package, then send the drawing with the critical post-machined features and required final condition marked. That gives Lab Ready the information needed to review the print, secondary operations and inspection expectations as one quote.