Materials innovations are shaping the next generation of medical devices. In this Q&A, Jeremy Schaffer, director of research and development at Fort Wayne Metals, discusses how advances in titanium, nickel-titanium, surface engineering, and smart materials are helping device developers improve performance, miniaturization, durability, and patient outcomes. He also addresses sustainability, scale-up challenges, and the collaborations needed to move promising materials from research into real-world medical use.
MDB: What are some of the most significant innovations you are seeing in titanium, nitinol, or cobalt-chrome materials that are advancing device performance or miniaturization?
Jeremy Schaffer: One of the biggest areas is the continued evolution of shape-memory and superelastic materials. Nitinol remains extremely important because of its ability to recover elastically far beyond what traditional steels can do. That makes it ideal for minimally invasive devices such as heart valves and vascular implants that need to be compressed into a small delivery profile and then expanded in the body.
At the same time, nitinol has some limitations, particularly because it contains about 50 percent nickel. In many applications, that is manageable, but in hard-tissue environments such as bone repair, wear can expose material surfaces over time and raise concerns about long-term particle release. To address that, we have been working on nickel-free alternatives. One example is a titanium-zirconium alloy system that behaves much like nitinol while eliminating nickel. That could open new opportunities in orthopedic and pediatric applications where long-term compatibility and durability are especially important.
Another significant area is expanding the operating envelope of shape-memory alloys. Conventional nickel-titanium systems can lose performance over very wide temperature swings. Through microstructural refinement and processing advances, we have been able to expand the useful temperature range dramatically. While that work has relevance beyond medicine, it reflects the broader principle that more capable materials can enable devices to function in environments and conditions that were previously out of reach.
MDB: How do you approach material design to achieve the right balance between mechanical strength, flexibility, and biocompatibility, especially for implantable or minimally invasive devices?
Schaffer: Materials design is always about trade-offs. If you increase strength too aggressively, you can lose ductility. If you optimize for one property in isolation, you may compromise another that is equally important in the clinical setting.
Our starting point is to work very closely with customers and users to understand exactly what the device must do. Whether the application is a heart valve, a guidewire, or an orthopedic implant, we need to translate device performance requirements into material properties. That only happens through deep listening and close collaboration.
From there, we combine customer input with published materials research, clinical insights, and our own process knowledge. We want to understand not just the desired properties, but also the real-world failure modes and use conditions. Then we iterate. We do not wait for a perfect model before taking action. We do enough preparation to make an informed first attempt, learn from that quickly, and refine the design. That iterative approach helps us find the right balance among performance, manufacturability, and biological response.
MDB: Sustainability is gaining momentum in the medtech sector. How can manufacturers address sustainability in material sourcing, recycling, and lifecycle management?
Schaffer: Sustainability matters, but it has to be considered in context. In some implant markets, the total volume of metal used is relatively small compared with broader healthcare applications, so performance and patient value remain the dominant drivers. Still, that does not diminish the importance of improving sustainability where we can.
In areas such as orthopedics, the material volumes are much larger, and there is meaningful opportunity to improve recycling and reuse. We are actively investigating ways to incorporate reverted or recycled stock into titanium and nickel-titanium melt streams. The goal is to reduce cost and improve sustainability without sacrificing the performance and consistency required for medical materials.
We are also working to align with broader environmental and sustainability standards. For us, sustainability is not a single initiative; it is becoming part of how we think about sourcing, process efficiency, waste streams, and long-term value creation.
MDB: Are surface modifications or coatings improving corrosion resistance, fatigue performance, or biointegration in medical devices?
Schaffer: Absolutely. Every metallic implant has an interface with the body, even if that interface is only a very thin oxide layer on the surface. That nanoscale surface matters because it is where proteins, cells, and tissues interact with the implant.
We are learning more and more about how surface chemistry, oxide composition, passivation, and grain structure affect biological response. In vascular devices, for example, the way endothelial cells interact with a surface can influence healing and device integration. That makes surface engineering critical.
Coatings are also essential in absorbable metals. If you take a magnesium-based implant for bone healing, it needs to remain strong long enough to support the tissue, then gradually resorb at the right time. Protective coatings help control that timeline. Some of those coatings are ceramic-based, while others are biopolymeric. In both cases, the aim is to tune the interaction between the implant and the body so the device performs as intended throughout the healing process.
MDB: With the growth of connected and sensor-enabled medical devices, what role do advanced materials such as conductive polymers or shape-memory alloys play in enabling smart functionality?
Schaffer: There is a lot of exciting work in this area. My own expertise is strongest in metals, so I tend to look at smart functionality through the lens of shape-memory alloys and related systems. Nitinol, for example, can be used for actuation. It can create motion thermally and do so in a very compact, lightweight format. In some cases, that means achieving similar functional work with far less mass than a conventional electric motor. That has obvious implications for implantable and wearable devices where size and weight are critical.
There are also opportunities for sensing. Under certain conditions, nickel-titanium structures can produce measurable electrical or magnetic responses as they deform. That raises the possibility of using the material not only as a structural element, but also as a means of monitoring implant behavior, such as loosening or displacement.
One especially interesting area is smart textiles. We have been working with university collaborators to develop textile-like structures from shape-memory alloys. Imagine a device that looks and feels more like a sock than a rigid medical appliance, yet can provide therapeutic compression as it responds to temperature. That kind of material-enabled functionality could make devices more comfortable, easier to use, and more effective.
MDB: As new materials are developed, what are the biggest challenges in scaling them from R&D to fullscale production while maintaining consistency and regulatory compliance?
Schaffer: One of the biggest risks is moving too aggressively too early. A company can get excited by promising early adopters. They invest heavily and then discover that broader market adoption requires far more de-risking, validation, and process maturity than expected.
That is why scale-up has to be approached with discipline. We need to understand where the technology could fail, what the dependencies are, and how different end uses may change the risk profile. A material used in a stent is not the same as a material used in another high-performance application, even if the alloy is related.
It is also important to bring more conservative customer voices into development earlier. That helps align expectations, manage investment pacing, and ensure the path to commercialization is realistic. Consistency and regulatory compliance are not afterthoughts; they must be built into the development plan from the beginning.
MDB: Looking ahead, what material-science frontiers are you most excited about, and how are you collaborating with OEMs and research partners to bring those innovations to market?
Schaffer: Three areas stand out. One is stroke treatment. We are working with clinical and research partners to explore ultra-high-strength materials that can support thinner structures, such as catheters that can reach further into the brain and help retrieve clots that are difficult to access today. There is also interest in eventually using absorbable materials in neurovascular applications, although that will require extensive long-term safety work.
The second is improving the durability of shape-memory alloys. We want to continue advancing materials that already play key roles in vascular, orthopedic, and other applications, while also extending their performance and service life. That work depends on broad collaboration across the supply chain, from material producers to component manufacturers and device developers.
The third is the continued development of absorbable materials for pediatric and regenerative applications. The longterm vision is to create implants that support healing and then gradually disappear as the body recovers. That could be especially meaningful in children, where a device that resorbs could reduce the need for additional interventions later.
Conclusion
Advanced materials are doing far more than incrementally improving medical devices; they are redefining what those devices can be. From nickel-free superelastic alloys and smarter surfaces to absorbable implants and shape-memory textiles, materials science is helping OEMs push toward smaller, more adaptive, and more patient-friendly technologies. Success will depend not only on better materials, but also on strong collaboration among suppliers, device makers, clinicians, and researchers. That combination of innovation and partnership is likely to shape the next wave of medtech progress.
This Q&A is excerpted from the Medical Design Briefs podcast “Material Science Innovations for Medical Devices.” To listen to the podcast, go here. For more information on Fort Wayne Metals, visit here .
