In addi�on to the LC topology induced by the PDMS scaffolds in the XY-plane, we also explored the possibility of controlling the director field along the Z-axis. To this aim, a rectangular LCE microstructure (37.5 × 60 × 15 µm 3 ) was printed between PDMS par��ons (Figure ). In addi�on to ver�cal scaffolds, which are orthogonal to the substrate as shown previously, other orienta�ons and geometries of the PDMS microstructures were tested. These included PDMS scaffolds with a �lt of 45 degrees, convex curves, and concave curves. In order to visualize the effect in the z direc�on, the POM images of the LCE microstructure were captured in side view. Compared to the reference structure printed without PDMS confinement (Figure ), dis�nct prin�ng outcomes and birefringence were observed for each structure. The microstructure printed in between the ver�cal scaffold (Figure ) exhibited minimal birefringence, like the reference sample, as both the induced planar director and the pris�ne homeotropic alignment were oriented in line with the crossed polarizers. However, an addi�onal layer (~16 µm) was observed on top of the reference sample, resul�ng in a greater overall height than the programmed model. This occurred due to the spli�ng of the laser focus while prin�ng within a homeotropically aligned birefringent medium , as the focus spli�ng is less pronounced for planar director orienta�on. Also, the orienta�on of the LC director not only affected the laser focus differently but also resulted in dis�nct shrinkage behavior. As seen in Figure , the LCE microstructure exhibited a slight �lt due to the director being at 45° and radial LC topologies were observed in the LCE microstructures according to the curvature of the scaffolds (Figure ). For simula�ng the director field along the Z-direc�on, the same boundary condi�ons were used for the PDMS scaffold and the polyimide coated substrate. As seen in the last line of Figure , the predicted director fields obey the prescribed boundary condi�ons. However, the simulated birefringence paterns do not always agree with the experimental observa�ons. While the experiment and the simula�on showed similar intensity profiles for the pris�ne sample (Figure ) and the one within the concave scaffold (Figure ), different profiles were found for the other cases. For example, due to the boundary effect from three surfaces (two walls and the substrate), non-zero intensity profiles were theore�cally predicted between two straight walls (Figure ) and for the �lted scaffold (Figure ) under 45° polariza�on.