A team of scientists has developed a technology that allows for the integration of soft and hard materials. The method is inspired by human body engineering and aims to replicate the same principle as, for example, how bone connects to cartilage. The potential of the technology is immense. It could completely change the design and manufacturing of prosthetics, wearable medical devices, and robotic technologies.
Now, we are pleased to present an exclusive interview with one of the leading researchers of this scientific breakthrough, Dr. Zachariah A. Page, who offers a more in-depth and detailed view of this transformative innovation developed by The University of Texas.
Dr. Zachariah A. Page is currently an Assistant Professor in the Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Departments at The University of Texas at Austin. His academic work primarily focuses on the research and development of new polymeric materials. Additionally, Page works with a research group that is actively developing innovative 3D printing technologies.
Interview with Zachariah Page:
Arsen Sebiskveradze: Beyond improving the interface between soft and hard materials, what would you say are the biggest technical advantages of your 3D printing method? How does it perform in terms of strength, durability, resolution, and flexibility? And how does it compare specifically to traditional medical materials like titanium or cobalt alloys?
Zachariah A. page: We have developed a new 3D printing Methodthat seamlessly joins soft and hard materials. This technology is distinguished by its speed, precision, and diverse mechanical properties, all while being quite low in cost. Our method can print at a height of 1.5 millimeters per minute with an accuracy of approximately 200 micrometers. Furthermore, the technology allows us to use materials with a stiffness difference of up to 3000 times within the same product. The hard parts reach a stiffness of about 69 megapascals, which is comparable to engineering plastics like polycarbonate, often used in surgical devices. The soft parts can stretch more than 250% and maintain high elasticity, similar to the silicones used in medical tubing. While plastics are inherently softer than titanium or cobalt alloys, they allow us to create lighter and more flexible devices that are a better fit for biological tissues. This technology will bring significant advancements to medicine and other fields in the future.
Arsen Sebiskveradze: How biocompatible is the resin you’re using? Have you explored potential immune responses, rejection risks, or infection concerns in real clinical settings?
Zachariah A. page: The resin is based on widely used acrylate and epoxy monomers, which have established profiles in medical-grade materials. While we have not yet performed direct cytotoxicity or immune response studies on these specific formulations, their cured thermoset networks are expected to behave similarly to clinically used epoxy–acrylate systems. Formal biocompatibility testing, particularly for leachables, immune response, and sterilization stability, would be a necessary next step before translation.
Arsen Sebiskveradze: Are you currently collaborating with any physicians or clinical researchers? If so, what kind of feedback have they provided, and how has that shaped your development process?
Zachariah A. page: We have not yet initiated formal collaborations with physicians or clinical researchers, but we view that as a critical next phase. Direct clinical feedback will help prioritize which prosthetic or biomedical interfaces would benefit most from this technology and inform requirements for regulatory approval and patient-specific customization.
Arsen Sebiskveradze: Arsen Sebiskveradze: Do you plan to apply for FDA approval, or have you already started that journey? What’s your rough timeline from lab prototype to clinical trials and, eventually, medical use?
Zachariah A. page: FDA approval would follow after biocompatibility characterization and consultation with clinical partners to define specific use cases. At this stage, our focus is on developing the material platform and validating its stability under biologically relevant conditions. Translation to clinical trials would likely take several years, depending on the complexity of the target device and feedback from regulatory experts.
Arsen Sebiskveradze: Which kinds of patients or clinical needs do you see as the first to benefit from this technology? Are you thinking about high-performance cases like athletes, or perhaps elderly patients who need better mobility? How do you prioritize these use cases?
Zachariah A. page: Initial applications could include prosthetics and patient-specific interfaces, where rigid structures must integrate comfortably with soft tissue. These cases often suffer from poor fit or discomfort with traditional rigid materials.
Longer term, we envision broader applications in wearable health monitors and assistive devices, but further customer discovery is needed to identify the most impactful entry points.
Arsen Sebiskveradze: From a surgeon’s or rehabilitation expert’s perspective, how might your printed materials impact traditional prosthetic procedures? Could this potentially lead to quicker recoveries or fewer complications?
Zachariah A. page: Because the method allows patient-specific geometries with built-in soft–hard transitions, it could improve prosthetic comfort, reduce pressure points, and minimize post-surgical complications. By integrating 3D body scanning with our fabrication process, surgeons and rehabilitation experts could produce better-fitting, personalized devices that reduce adjustment time and potentially accelerate recovery
Arsen Sebiskveradze: Looking ahead, do you see your technology enabling truly personalized implants or joint replacements tailored to each patient’s unique anatomy? What are the next major steps in your research, and how close are we to seeing this applied in everyday medical practice?
Zachariah A. page: Yes, our long-term vision includes truly personalized implants and joint replacements tailored to each patient’s anatomy. The next major research steps include evaluating the long-term mechanical and chemical stability of these materials under simulated physiological conditions. With that data and clinical input, we can begin identifying high-value medical applications and pathways toward everyday practice.
Arsen Sebiskveradze: 3D printing is having a major moment in medicine right now. In your view, where is this momentum heading? What kind of future does this technology hold for healthcare?
Zachariah A. page: The momentum is shifting toward functional, patient-specific medical devices, rather than mass-produced implants. In parallel, 3D printing will advance biological models for disease research and, in the longer term, biofabrication of living tissues to address transplant shortages. We see our platform as a bridge technology, offering high precision and tunable mechanics to support both immediate prosthetic applications and future regenerative medicine efforts.
Arsen Sebiskveradze: In countries with developing healthcare systems—like Georgia, where I’m based—access to advanced biomedical technologies can be limited. Do you see a future where innovations like yours become globally accessible? What, in your opinion, would it take to make that possible in lower-resource settings?
Zachariah A. page: Vat photopolymerization is inherently low-cost and compact, making it easier to deploy than traditional manufacturing methods. Even consumer-grade light engines from TVs or smartphones have the potential to drive these printers. Improving resin efficiency and printer brightness could enable mobile, affordable fabrication units for low-resource healthcare settings. Achieving this will also require streamlined workflows and local training to ensure accessibility and impact.
Arsen Sebiskveradze: Thank you very much, Dr. Page, for the comprehensive interview! Your technology is truly revolutionary, and we are confident that it will have a huge impact on medicine. We wish you success in your future research endeavors.
