Materials Science and Engineering C 78 (2017) 1263–1276

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Science and Engineering C

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/msec

Review

A review of biocompatible metal injection moulding process parameters

for biomedical applications
M.F.F.A. Hamidi a, W.S.W. Harun b,⁎, M. Samykano c, S.A.C. Ghani b, Z. Ghazalli b, F. Ahmad d, A.B. Sulong e
a
Institute of Postgraduate Studies, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Lebuhraya Tun Razak, 26300 Gambang, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
b
Green Research for Advanced Materials Laboratory, Human Engineering Group, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, 26600 Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia
c
Structural and Material Degradation Group, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, 26600 Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia
d
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia
e
Department of Mechanical & Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM, Bangi, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Biocompatible metals have been revolutionizing the biomedical field, predominantly in human implant applica-
Received 8 August 2016 tions, where these metals widely used as a substitute to or as function restoration of degenerated tissues or or-
Received in revised form 30 April 2017 gans. Powder metallurgy techniques, in specific the metal injection moulding (MIM) process, have been
Accepted 4 May 2017
employed for the fabrication of controlled porous structures used for dental and orthopaedic surgical implants.
Available online 5 May 2017
The porous metal implant allows bony tissue ingrowth on the implant surface, thereby enhancing fixation and
Keywords:
recovery. This paper elaborates a systematic classification of various biocompatible metals from the aspect of
Metal injection moulding MIM process as used in medical industries. In this study, three biocompatible metals are reviewed-stainless
Biocompatible metals steels, cobalt alloys, and titanium alloys. The applications of MIM technology in biomedicine focusing primarily
Biomedical on the MIM process setting parameters discussed thoroughly. This paper should be of value to investigators
Sintering who are interested in state of the art of metal powder metallurgy, particularly the MIM technology for biocom-
Powder metallurgy patible metal implant design and development.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1264
2. Biocompatible metals for biomedical applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1264
2.1. Stainless steels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1264
2.2. Titanium and its alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1265
2.3. Cobalt-based alloys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1266
3. Metal injection moulding process for biocompatible metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1266
3.1. Feedstock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1268
3.1.1. Metal powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1268
3.1.2. Binder selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1269
3.1.3. Feedstock preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1269
3.2. De-binding process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1269
3.3. Sintering process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1270
4. MIM challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1271
5. Future prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1271
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1272
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1272
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1272

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sharuzi@ump.edu.my (W.S.W. Harun).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2017.05.016
0928-4931/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1264 M.F.F.A. Hamidi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 78 (2017) 1263–1276
1. Introduction
The use of biomaterial can be dated from thousands of years ago. Ar-
chaeologists have discovered and evidenced the use of biomaterial as
dental implants from as early as 200 CE However, the use of this im-
plants came to glory after World War II [1]. Biomaterials were initially
known as nonviable materials that widely used in biomedical applica-
tions. Predominantly in medical devices which aimed to interact with
biological systems [2]. Biomaterials in the form of implants classically
employed to ligaments, vascular grafts, intraocular lenses, heart valves,
dental implants, and in medical devices like pacemakers, artificial
hearts, and biosensors, which are widely used to replace and restore
the function of traumatized or degenerated tissues and organs in the
human body. The primary aim of these implants is to contribute to a bet-
ter quality of life for the patients [3,4]. The medical community started
to accept metals as implant materials upon Lane's success of using
metal plate for bone fracture fixation in 1895 (Lane, 1895) and later
came to be known as biocompatible metal [5].
To date, biocompatible metals had become the most favored mate-
rials for the commercial production of medical implants due to their
outstanding mechanical, physical and chemical properties [6–11].
From the vast choice of metals and alloys available in the industry,
only a handful are biologically compatible and have the aptitude to be-
come long-term implant materials [12]. These metals are principally
used to replace and support parts of the damaged bones. Routinely
also used as artificial joints, plates, screws, intramedullary nails, spinal
and spacer fixations, external fixators, pacemaker casings, artificial
heart valves, stents, and as dental implants. In comparison to ceramic
and polymeric materials, biocompatible metals are ideal as implant
since they exhibit greater fracture toughness, tensile strength, and fa-
tigue strength [13–19].
Implants developed from stainless steel, titanium and its alloys, and
cobalt based alloys are the most extensively used in the present-day
biomedical applications [20–27]. They fit biomaterial prospects due to
their outstanding mechanical, chemical properties and corrosion resis-
tance. During the initial period of medical implant evolution, the key
consideration criteria for implant material selection were the satisfacto-
ry physical properties and their non-toxicity nature [4]. At present date,
the criteria have been broadened even to include the ability of the im-
plant material to assist in the growth of human body tissues and its
physical properties [28–33].
Powder metallurgy (PM) technology, in specific the MIM technique,
has been recognized as one of the prominent methods to produce ex-
ceptional components or parts for numerous fields and industries in
the past several years. Additionally, this technique had also been
exploited in medicine field as an optional method for fabricating im-
plants used in surgery and dentistry [12,34–39] befitting for economical
mass production. Also, MIM are known for its near net shaping tech-
nique that is particularly advantageous for the development of complex
shapes of high density, and with excellent dimensional accuracy [40–
48]. The MIM technique invented from the idea of plastic injection
moulding, of which metal powder particles mixed with a binder and
the mixture (usually in slurry form) injected into the cavity of the
mould of desired shape [49–51]. The four major stages in MIM tech-
nique to produce a part are; (1) Mixing of powder and binders to pro-
duce feedstock; (2) Injection moulding process to get a green
compact; (3) A de-binding process to extract away the binders; and
(4) Produce a brown compact and sintering process to produce a
sintered compact.
This paper summarizes the MIM process parameters for three
groups of biocompatible metals which are stainless steel, titanium and
its alloys, and cobalt based alloys, focusing primarily towards biomedi-
cal applications. This review covers pertaining research works that pub-
lished between years of 2001 to 2016. Strengths and weaknesses
respect to mechanical properties and corrosion resistance of these bio-
compatible metals systematically discussed. In MIM technique, it
assumed that biocompatible metal feedstocks consist of multicompo-
nent binders, and high powder loading will lead to successful injection
process eventually deliver enhanced properties for green compacts.
Where else, for the de-binding process, the binders expected to be
fully removed when the de-binding temperature increased to the melt-
ing and decomposition temperatures. Finally, to attain higher relative
density and full-dense compact, the brown compact is sintered at a
higher temperature, close to the melting temperature of these alloys.
2. Biocompatible metals for biomedical applications
The use of metallic materials for medical applications, especially im-
plant devices can be traced back from the 19th century (metal industry
revolt era, also known as Industrial Revolution Era). The progression of
the metallic implants was instigated by the demands for better means to
bone repair, especially for long bone internal fracture fixation [12]. Nu-
merous types of metals have been tried and used in biomedicine accord-
ing to the required specification of an implant. However, the most
popular and accepted biocompatible metals at present for implants
are from stainless steel, titanium and its alloys, and cobalt based alloys.
Table 1 summarizes the types of metals used for different implant de-
vices [5,52].
2.1. Stainless steels
Stainless steel originally discovered in 1904 by Leon Guillet. Howev-
er, it was Strauss who began applying stainless steel for surgery in 1926.
He discovered stainless steel type 316 (which contain 18 wt% Cr and
~8 wt% Ni stainless steel that contained 2–4% molybdenum) with very
low carbon, were profoundly suitable as an implant and surgical devices
due to their excellent corrosion resistance and relatively stronger than
steel. The corrosion resistance of stainless steel alloys is highly depen-
dent on the formation of thin Cr, Mo-containing passive surface oxide
layer, whereby the Mo imparts stability in a Cl– containing environ-
ment. It forms a designed single phase (FCC austenite phase) from its
forging temperature (∼1050 °C) to room temperature and attain accept-
able fatigue resistance and improved strength as a result of strain hard-
ening and solid solution strengthening mechanisms and a fine grain size
[5,60,75]. The chemical structure of 316L SS was developed uniquely to
achieve stable austenitic structure. Therefore, this structure obligates
several advantages, namely; 1) Austenitic stainless steel has a face-cen-
tered cubic structure and characterised by very low yield strength, ten-
sile strength ratio, and high formability ability; 2) Successive strain
aging and cold working can be used to increase its strength; 3) Austen-
itic stainless steel exhibits excellent corrosion resistance than ferritic
stainless steel due to the crystallographic atomic density of the former
is greater than that of the latter; and 4) Austenitic stainless steel is basi-
cally nonmagnetic [5,13].
Furthermore, biomedical devices that are made from stainless steels
expose a right combination of fabrication response of mechanical
strength, cost effectiveness, ductility, and mechanical strength [60].
Compared to cobalt- and titanium-based alloys, 316L SS is widely used
as implant devices because they are less expensive by a factor of one-
tenth to one-fifth [76–78]. Even though this material is rather cheap,
biocompatible, and vigorous, but it does subject to slow corrosion in
the body. The grain size and inclusion of metal impurities should also
be administered with caution as it is found to affect corrosion resistance
and the strength of the material. Another concern for 316L SS is its high
modulus of elasticity (of nearly 200 GPa) compared to human bone.
These values are about ten times greater than the modulus of elasticity
of human bone. Therefore, to alleviate the stress shielding effects caused
by high modulus material, the stainless steel prostheses have been
employed with a lower modulus polymer like polymethylmethacrylate
for both fixation and implant in bones [79].
 M.F.F.A. Hamidi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 78 (2017) 1263–1276 1265

Table 1
Biocompatible metals employed in biomedical applications.

Material Application References

Bone screws and pins

on lay bone plates
blade and nail bone plate
intramedullary bone nails
316L SS total joint prostheses
wires
Sutures
Wire mesh
Cardiac pacemaker housing
301 SS Neurosurgical aneurysm
Microvascular clips
Stainless steel alloy [12,53–62]
304 SS Trachea Tube
Sutures
Neurosurgical aneurysm
Microvascular clips
Retention pins for dental amalgam
Preformed dental crowns
Fixed orthodontic appliances
420 SS Neurosurgical aneurysm
431 SS Microvascular clips
17-7PH SS Neurosurgical aneurysm
Microvascular clips
Plates,
Screws,
Dentistry,
Ti–6Al–4V Orthopaedic implant
Load-bearing
Orthodontic therapy,
Root canal instrumentation
Ti―6Al―7Nb Femoral hip stems
Fracture fixation plates
Spinal components
Fasteners
Nails
Rods
Titanium and its alloy [48,53,58,59,63–72]
Screws
wires
Ti-3Al-2.5V Tubing
Intramedullary nails
Ti6Al4V ELI Total joint replacement arthroplasty
CP-Ti Screws and staple for spinal surgery
Pace-maker case
Implantable fusion drug pump
Dental implants
Housing for ventricular-assist devices
Maxillofacial and Craniofacial implants
NiTi Intravascular stent
Wires
Bearing surfaces,
CoCrMo [53,59,73,74]
Orthopaedics implant
Cobalt based alloy
Co-20Cr-15W-10Ni Bone plate
Co-Ni-Cr-Mo-W-Fe Wire

2.2. Titanium and its alloys
Since the mid-1940s, titanium and its alloys have been extensively
used in chemical, aerospace and medical industries. Several researchers
uphold in establishing titanium alloys for medical uses due to their
unique properties, such as high specific strength, lightweight, and bio-
inertness [28,80–85]. The first documented use of titanium alloy in
medical field came from “Ti–6Al–4V alloy” in 1954 which developed
in the United States. The properties of Ti–6Al–4V alloy include superior
heat resistance, strength, plasticity, toughness, formability, weldability,
corrosion resistance and biocompatibility. The Ti–6Al–4V alloy's de-
mand accounted for 75–85% out of all other kinds of titanium alloys.
Considerably, many other titanium alloys can also be considered as a
derivation of Ti–6Al–4V alloy. Improvement in mechanical properties
of titanium implants has brought about a + s titanium alloys, such as
Ti–6Al–4V (6% aluminum, 4% vanadium), Ti–6Al–4V ELI (lower speci-
fied limits on iron and the interstitial elements C and O) and Ti–6Al–
7Nb (5.5–6.5% Al, 6.5–7.5% Nb). These titanium alloys have huge com-
mercial potential and widely applied as orthopaedic load-bearing im-
plants due to their comparatively excellent fatigue resistance and
biological passivity [68,80,86–88].
The popularity of titanium and its alloys today, are owing to their ex-
cellent fatigue resistance, which correlated to good in vivo corrosion re-
sistance. This feature contributed from the quick-forming stable passive
oxide layer (TiO2), lower modulus of elasticity in comparison to other
biocompatible metals, and also a strong osseointegration tendency
(i.e., development of close bone-to-implant opposition after small im-
plant at ion periods) [75,89–94]. Typically, implant materials are chosen
based on the requirements as listed in Table 2. Among available biocom-
patible metals such as stainless steels and cobalt based alloys, the titani-
um and its alloys more prevails in biomedical applications as it exhibits
all the properties which fulfill the required requirements as medical im-
plant materials. Suitable designs and thermo-mechanical processing
control of titanium alloys have allowed enhanced mechanical properties
1266 M.F.F.A. Hamidi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 78 (2017) 1263–1276

Table 2
Consideration for implant materials [12].
Property Requirement
Mechanical Expected to survive N107 cyclic loading
For the long-term implants, the implant material should
Corrosion
demonstrate high corrosion resistance.
Integrate well with bones. It is crucial for an implant to have a
Osseo-integration
suitable surface.
such as Young's modulus, yield strength, tensile strength, elongation,
and fatigue strength, as listed Table 3 [95,96].
It assumed that the excellent corrosion resistance behavior is the re-
sult of the formation of a dense and stable passive layer on the material
surface when it comes in contact with air. This natural protective oxide
film rebuilds spontaneously after being damaged, even in a solution
with low oxygen content, and involves low metal ion release even in
hostile environments [65,97,98].
2.3. Cobalt-based alloys
Cobalt-based alloys can also be categorized as one of the favorable
biocompatible metals which have been broadly used in biomedical in-
dustries, particularly in orthopaedic and dental implants due to their ex-
cellent wear and corrosion resistance [108]. As of now, there are two
most preferable types of cobalt based alloys used as implant materials.
Both of these alloys have a balanced cobalt content of roughly 28% chro-
mium and 5% molybdenum. A major difference between these two is
that one has a greater carbon content in the range of 0.15–0.25%,
while the other, has a lower carbon content of b 0.06% [109]. As to
date, substantial refinements have been made in the attempts to reduce
the total volumetric wear in cobalt-based metallic implants. Whereby
the attempts has been mainly concentrated on the design aspect,
while in some other cases, using a finer surface finish, thinner acetabu-
lar cup, bigger femoral head diameter, and a lower clearance (50 to 90
μm between the femoral head and acetabular) [73]. Cobalt-based alloys
are commonly referred as non-magnetic, but with good heat and corro-
sion resistance; displaying high strength even at high temperature and
also excellent wear resistant. Several of this properties initiates from the
crystallographic nature of cobalt, and the formation of extremely hard
carbides, where else the corrosion resistance are imparted by the chro-
mium compound. The use of cobalt based alloys had previously been
limited because of the difficulty in fabrication due to high strength
and melting temperature. Nevertheless, continuous research has even-
tually eased the production through the advancement of specific casting
methods and even recently, to selective laser melting (SLM) process
[110]. The first logged medical use of cobalt based alloys was as dental
implants; owing to their good degradation resistance in the oral envi-
ronment [13].
Even though the present reviewed biocompatible metals are not
likely ideal implant materials, but till date, they are the most suitable
material for modern orthopaedics applications. Each of those alloys
has their respective advantages and limitations, as summarized in
Table 4. Stress-shielding, correlated with high modulus, as explained
before, is quintessentially an obstacle to be overcome. From the physio-
logical perspective, the fatigue life of cobalt-based alloy tends to be lon-
ger than that of titanium and its alloys. However, in terms of corrosion
resistance, the titanium and its alloys are much more superior com-
pared to other biocompatible metals. One of the key favorable property
in titanium, are the low elastic modulus, which is twice-fold lower than
of stainless steel and Cobalt-based alloy. These lower modulus results in
lower stress shielding and associated bone resorption around the Ti-
based orthopaedic and dental implants. Moreover, since titanium is rel-
atively lightweight compared to other biocompatible metals, they cre-
ate fewer artifacts on computer tomography (CT) and magnetic
resonance imaging [111]. Titanium and its alloys are the most desirable
due to their excellent biocompatibility and low density without metal-
related toxicities. Nevertheless, the main drawback of the titanium is
that they relatively have poor resistance to friction and wear. Fretting
fatigue correlated with friction remains the major reason for failure in
orthopaedic implants, particularly in stems of hip joint prostheses [12].
3. Metal injection moulding process for biocompatible metals
The fabrication of biocompatible metals as implant devices became
restricted because of high raw materials cost, complex design geometry,
and limitations of the current fabrication process. The metal injection
moulding (MIM) could oblige as an alternative means to overcome
those problems. MIM process could reduce the production costs via its
net-shape fabrication advantages and the suitable of the process to pro-
duce of small and high complexity parts with large production quanti-
ties [119–124]. This technique adapted from the plastic injection
moulding process, of which a significant volume fraction of plastic is re-
placed by small metal particles [125]. This process also serves as a solu-
tion for some of the limitations of the conventional fabrication method,
namely the defects and tolerances of conventional casting, the shape re-
strictions of traditional powder compaction, the productivity restric-
tions of isostatic pressing and slip casting, and also the exorbitant
costs of machining. Since the 1980s, MIM process has been successfully
used for processing various materials such as ceramics, metals and hard
metals in medium or high volumes like alumina, copper, titanium,
cemented carbides and stainless steels [126–131]. This technique ac-
commodates not only the production of conventional components but
also biomedical components as it has the capability to produce complex
geometry parts and at very competitive cost. From the years of 2001 to
2016, research that accentuated involving biocompatible metals for the
biomedical application has indeed experienced rapid development.
Table 5 summarizes the research that done on these three biocompati-
ble metals.

Table 3
Mechanical properties of biocompatible metal.

Biocompatible metal Tensile strength (MPa) Modulus (GPa) Yield strength (MPa) Elongation (%) Fatigue limit at 107 cycles/MPa References

CP-Ti (pure titanium) 390–785 105–110 250 15–24 200–430

Ti–6Al–4V 920–1140 110 830–1070 10–15 620–725
Ti–6Al–7Nb 1024 105–110 810–1010 10 580–710
Ti–5Al–2.5Fe 860–1033 110–115 780 6 300–750
Ti–13Nb–13Zr 705–1035 64–83 435–905 10–16 500
Ti–15Mo–5Zr–3Al 882–975 75 870–970 17–20 410
Ti–12Mo–6Zr–2Fe 1060–1100 74–85 1000–1060 18–22 580 [2,12,15,28,60,95,99–107]
Ti–12Mo–6Zr–2Fe(TMZF) 1060–1100 74–85 1000–1060 18–22 525
Ti–35Nb–5Ta–7Zr (TNZT) 590 55 800 20 265
Ti–15Mo–3Nb–0.3O (21SRx) 1020 82 950–990 16–18 490
Stainless steel 316L 500–1350 200 200–700 10–40 200–820
Co-alloys 655–1896 210–253 500–1500 10–50 207–896
Bone 60–130 12–21 27–35
 M.F.F.A. Hamidi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 78 (2017) 1263–1276 1267

Table 4
Advantages and limitations of biocompatible metals.

Biocompatible Advantages Disadvantages References

metal

1) Good machinability
2) High wear resistance 1) High modulus of elasticity (possibility of stress shielding),
316L stainless 3) good fatigue strength in short-term 2) Ni and Cr released
steel applications 3) Inferior corrosion resistance and biocompatibility compared to other
4) Low cost compared to other biocompat- implant alloys
ible metal
[10,12,18,19,65,68,76,77,111–118]
1) High static and fatigue strength 1) The release of Al and V ions may cause health problems
Titanium and its
2) Excellent corrosion resistance 2) Expensive High modulus (stress shielding effect)
alloy
3) Excellent biocompatibility 3) Lower shear strength
1) High static and fatigue strength 1) Difficult to machine and thus expensive to process
Cobalt-based
2) Good biocompatibility 2) Ni and Cr allergy
alloys
3) High corrosion resistance 3) High modulus (stress shielding effect)

At present, there are other manufacturing processes available, which
have the capabilities to fabricate biomedical devices. The common other
processes that existing are the conventional injection moulding process,
machining, and the latest would be the additive manufacturing process.
However, most of these processes especially the conventional process
would not be able to compete with the enactment promised by MIM
process. Every single manufacturing process has its drawback, which in-
cludes metallurgical defects, surface quality, and high manufacturing
costs. Parts that experience defects will pose low mechanical properties
and corrosion resistance. Thus, the conventional process of casting or
forging is appropriate for large metallic parts for powder, shipping,
and military industries. Where else, the machining process usually
used to produce complex shapes, however the surface layer of ma-
chined components undergoes residual tensile stresses which lead to
the formation of many micro cracks. These cracks lead to the failure of
implants due to corrosion. Therefore, complex and small shapes of bio-
medical implants are more practical to be fabricated using MIM process.
Table 6 lists the advantages and the drawback of the available
manufacturing processes for biomedical devices. Although the additive
manufacturing technology such as selective laser melting (SLM) process
promises better properties compared to MIM products in term of phys-
ical and mechanical properties, the major drawback is it takes longer
building times, relatively high cost and limited surface finishes.
The MIM process divided into four main steps as shown in Fig. 1,
which are: 1) Preparation of feedstock by mixing powders with a
polymeric binder system. In the mixing process, usually, the ratio
of metal powder is higher than the binder ratio, which functions to
provide the necessary viscosity properties for injection moulding.
The mixture should be homogenous and free from agglomeration.
Mixing deficiencies would only manifest themselves at subsequent
processing steps such as moulding, de-binding, and sintering [137];
2) Injection moulding to replicate the mould inserts. In injection
moulding, the feedstock is injected into a mould, where it follows
the shape of the mould cavity before hardening through cooling.
Conventional plastic injection moulding (PIM) tools are employed
to produce the compact into preferred shapes. Even though the
flow behavior of MIM is very much alike to that of PIM, but the feed-
stock flow of MIM are quite viscous and freeze rapidly compared to
plastics due to their high thermal conductivity and viscosity, which
is also the main reasons of imperfect mould filling, particularly in
thin sections [138]. The compact produced after the injection process
are called green compacts; 3) Extraction of the binder. After injection
moulding process, the binder must be extracted from the moulded
compacts through a de-binding process. This main process is divided
into two, which called solvent and thermal de-bindings. In solvent
de-binding, the method utilises chemicals such as heptane and
hexane to remove major binder components, whereas the thermal
de-binding makes use of a furnace to heat up the compacts, thus re-
moving the remaining binders afterward [139]. The compacts that
have undergone either solvent or thermal de-bindings are known
as brown compacts; and 4) Finally, sintering, is the process that
produces strong inter-particle bonds among powder particles and
decreases void spaces through densification, such that high linear
shrinkage of 10–20% in the sintered compact were to take place.
Over 97% of the theoretical density can be obtained after sintering.
The final sintered density depends on the powder properties such
as the type of metal and sintering parameters such as sintering
time, temperature, atmosphere, and heating rate [46,140].

Table 5
Past works related to biocompatible metals for biomedical applications by using MIM process.

Materials Description Testing Applications References

Chemical Dental
CP-Ti The de-binding chemical reactions and the de-binding mechanisms. [48]
analysis Orthopaedic
Physical
CP-Ti Focuses on understanding the defects of the compacts after moulded Dental [132]
Rheology
Analyze the feasibility of fabricating HA/Ti–6Al–4V composite as an implant material through PIM with the use of palm
Ti6Al4V In vitro Orthopaedic [133]
stearin as the based binder
316L In vitro
Investigates the effect of Zr, Nb and Ti Additions on mechanical electrochemical properties and biocompatibility of
stainless Tensile Orthopaedic [46]
injection moulded 316L stainless steels
steel hardness
Investigate the injection moulding process parameters F75 CoCrMo alloy powder using conventional binder system Tensile
Co-Cr-Mo Orthopaedic [74]
consist of paraffin wax (PW), polyethylene (PE) and a small portion of stearic acid (SA) hardness
Wear
Validate the MIM technology by comparing microstructure, materials intrinsic mechanical properties, and fatigue
CoCrMo Hardness Orthopaedic [134]
resistance
Fatigue
In vitro
CoCrMo Evaluating microstructure, ion release, corrosion behavior, and in vitro cytocompatibility of implantable CoCrMo alloy Orthopaedic [135]
Corrosion
1268 M.F.F.A. Hamidi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 78 (2017) 1263–1276

Table 6 metal powder influences the feedstock properties, particularly the vis-
Advantages and drawback of current manufacturing techniques for biomedical devices cosity, flow, sintering behavior, and other functional attributes [141].
[136].
As particle size increases, the viscosity of the feedstock will decrease,
Process Advantages Drawback and this governs the stability of the injection moulding process. Also,
Good dimensional control, high the powder size affects the densification and mechanical properties of
Part size limitation, high sintering
production rate, products with the sintered compacts [142–144]. Most of the researchers prefer to
temperature (large amount of
MIM mechanical properties nearly
impurity phases, products with use smaller particle size, which is b22 μm, to increase densification
equivalent to wrought materials,
residual pores which governs the mechanical and corrosion properties. Small particle
good shape complexity
higher energy level needed for sizes do also contribute to the better surface finish of the sintered com-
laser powder processing: i.e. pact [143].
without post-infiltration,
SLM sintering or HIPing, produce fully
smaller scan velocities (longer Particle shapes are also paramount as the geometric configuration
build times), good beam quality controls the flow, viscosity, and de-binding behavior, which in turn gov-
dense parts (99.9%)
(more expensive laser) and high
laser power
erns the mechanical properties of the final moulded compacts. Spherical
Poor dimensional accuracies and shaped powder particles are favored over irregular shapes to obtain
Casting Any material can be cast surface finish, greater packing, hence allowing higher density for the end product.
Unavoidable defects. However, irregular shaped powder particles do demonstrate higher
Variety of materials, high causes severe tool wear,
strength for moulded compact after de-binding. Moreover, compared
Machining mechanical strength, and density, formation of burrs and poor chip
good dimensional accuracy breaking, high cost to irregular, sphere-shaped particles demonstrate lower viscosity as it
affects the flow during the moulding process. Particle size distribution
is also a crucial aspect in achieving suitable feedstock. The particle size
3.1. Feedstock distribution is represented by D10 (10% of particles are less than this
size), D50 (50% of particles are less than this size), and D90 (90% of par-
3.1.1. Metal powder ticles are less than this size). Strong fundamentals in particle size distri-
Equally imperative parameters to be considered for metal powder bution will aid the researchers in producing and maintaining feedstock
selection are the particle size and the particle shape of the metal pow- consistency during the MIM process. Two different powder lots contain-
der. These parameters play a paramount role throughout the stages of ing the same size of D50 but varying D10 and D90 contents would per-
the metal injection moulding process. Particle size and shape of the form distinctively during mixing, moulding and sintering process [141].

Fig. 1. Processing steps for MIM process.

 M.F.F.A. Hamidi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 78 (2017) 1263–1276
3.1.2. Binder selection
The selection of a suitable binder is essential for successful produc-
tion of full and good quality MIM compacts. Therefore, at the moulding
temperature, the viscosity of the binders should be lower than 10 Pa s,
with low viscosity change with temperature during moulding and
rapid viscosity change during cooling. The binder should have low con-
tact angle and adhere well to the powder particles during moulding.
Where else, during the de-binding stage, the binder should support
the shape of the compacts and completely decomposed before sintering
with low ash content. From manufacturing point of view, the binder
should also be environmentally friendly and low cost. To meet these re-
quirements, successful binder for the MIM process necessitates a multi-
component mixture [145]. Table 7 lists some of the examples of com-
mon binders used by scientist between the years 2001 and 2016.
3.1.3. Feedstock preparation
The feedstock is ultimately the mixture between alloy powder and
the binder. In MIM technology, the quality of feedstock is heavily depen-
dent on the alloy powder loading and the type of binder used. Previous
studies have stated that a feedstock with an optimum powder loading
would exhibit excellent rheological properties for the moulding process
with small distortion and show better mechanical properties after the
de-binding and sintering stages. From Table 8, most of the researchers
preferred to use powder loading from 60 to 70 vol% for 316L stainless
steel, titanium alloys, and cobalt based alloy. It is clear that by increasing
the powder loading, the mechanical properties together with the hard-
ness, strength, and density, would increase progressively.
The compacts that exerted with high powder loading would under-
go densification easily due to fewer pores between the powder particles
to be packed by the metal atoms through the sintering process. High
densification will lead to the whole enhancement of mechanical proper-
ties [49]. From a previous experiment (Kong, Barriere et al., 2012), the
critical powder volume loading for 316L SS powders with (D50 = 3.4
μm) was defined to be within the range of 68–70% based on the different
tests carried out with appropriate formulation [47].
3.2. De-binding process
In MIM technology, the binding and the binder removal, the so-
called de-binding process, is a crucial stage that influences the entire
MIM process and ultimately the quality of the end products. Long de-
binding times or high risk of compact distortion are some of the biggest
challenges for the economic success of MIM [148,154]. To increase the
rate of binder removal while preventing the compacts from defects,
the de-binding is typically carried out in multiple steps, which are sol-
vent and thermal de-bindings. Solvent de-binding is a process where
it means to initially perforate the binder structure before the following
thermal step [207]. The solvent de-binding process was popular to the
metal injection moulding industries circa the 1980s. This kind of de-
binding begins with the removal of the soluble binder components by
Table 7
Common binders and its composition for biocompatible metals (Years 2001–2016).
Binder function Binders Common composition (vol%)
Paraffin Wax (PW) 50–70
Carnauba wax (CW) 15–69
Main ingredient
Palm stearin (PS) 40–70
Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) 70–83
Polypropylene (PP) 10–25
Polyethylene (PE) 10–40
Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) 14–35
Backbone
High-density polyethylene (HDPE) 15–50
Ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) 6–35
Polymethyl methacrylate(PMMA) 15–25
Additive Stearic acid (SA) 1–5
1269
using solvents such as heptane or hexane. Previous studies have
shown that the solvent de-binding process consists of four stages. The
first stage is where the solvent molecules penetrate into the binder,
thus producing swollen gels. When the interaction between binder
and solvent are strong enough, the gels gradually disintegrate into a
true solution [208]. Obviously, with various binder components, types
of metal powders, and compact dimensions would result in distinct
binder removal rates, for example, a different rate controlling kinetics.
However, a similar formation process of combining pore channels into
compacts takes place regardless of the kind of binder system, powder
packing structure, or compact dimensions. The pores between the pow-
der particles that filled during the binding phase would gradually open.
When the binder removal continues to some extent, the connected pore
channels will be formed all over the whole compact [166]. Tables 9 and
10 show the common parameters of a de-binding process for biocom-
patible metals.
In thermal de-binding stage, the strength of the compacts would de-
crease, and become brittle due to thermal softening and also the loss of
the polymer. At the same time, thermal, gravitational, and residual
stresses would act on the compacts, hence creating cracks or even initi-
ate distortion as the polymer degrades. Apart from visible defects, any
microscopic defects caused during thermal de-binding would be exag-
gerated in the subsequent sintering process. Contrary to general percep-
tions, sintering does not heal de-binding flaws but instead tends to
amplify those defects. The proper thermal de-binding technique could
prevent carbonaceous residues which normally degrade the mechani-
cal, optical, thermal, magnetic, or electronic properties of the sintered
compacts. As mentioned in Table 10, the most common temperatures
used were between 400 and 600 °C. Most common backbone binders
such as polyethylene and polypropylene have degradation tempera-
tures around 450 to 500 °C. These preferred temperatures are suitable
for this process as it is capable of removing all the backbone binders
from the compacts before proceeding to a sintering process. From
Table 6, most of the researchers prefer to apply slow heating rate,
which is between 1 and 5 °C/min. A sudden evaporation of a binder frac-
tion with no clear exit path would cause the part to rupture and lose in-
tegrity. To avoid the formation of defects, it is common practice to
employ extremely slow heating cycles, hence ameliorating negative im-
plications on equipment requirements, capital expenditures, and pro-
ductivity; in several situations, thermal de-binding is a production
bottleneck [211].
From the result reported by Li, Liu et al., (2003), at low temperatures,
varying from 200 to 300 °C, the binder extraction focused more on the
evaporation of wax, which in this case is the paraffin wax. During this
stage, fine pore channels produced in moulded compacts. The difference
in vapor pressure drop for these two kinds of de-binding environments
resulted in different binder removal rates and different pore structure
evolution. At the transitional temperature between 300 and 400 °C,
binder flow and redistribution led to the loss of a lot of the fine pores
that developed during the low-temperature stage. At the end of
References
[47,146–162] [51,163–171] [71,133,164,172–184] [74,185–190]
1270 M.F.F.A. Hamidi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 78 (2017) 1263–1276

Table 8
Common powder loading for biocompatible metals (Years 2001–2016).

Alloy Powder loading Utilisation (%) References

40 ≤ PL b 50 5
50 ≤ PL b 60 30
316L stainless steel [38,46,47,51,146–154,156–158,160,161,163–166,169–171,191–200]
60 ≤ PL b 70 61
70 ≤ PL b 80 5
50 ≤ PL b 60 12
60 ≤ PL b 70 80
Titanium and its alloy [48,71,119,172–178,180,181,183,201–206]
70 ≤ PL b 80 4
80 ≤ PL b 90 4
Cobalt based alloy 60 ≤ PL b 70 100 [74,185–190]

transitional temperature de-binding process, the progress trend of pore
volume and size is compared to both hydrogen and vacuum de-bound
compacts [154].
3.3. Sintering process
Sintering is the final processing step in MIM technology, and it is
equally important in determining the mechanical and chemical proper-
ties of the final compacts. Also, sintering will affect the physical proper-
ties such as surface roughness and dimensional accuracy of the final
compacts. Much known about the effect of sintered density on the
final quality of MIM parts, which resulted in excellent mechanical prop-
erties and corrosion resistance [212]. Among the mechanical properties
like tensile strength and modulus of elasticity which are highly influ-
enced by sintering, the density of sintered part would also become the
most crucial factor to figure out the properties of sintered compacts.
The final dimension and hardness of the sintered compact are depen-
dent to the final density, as the pores occupy a significant portion of
the volume are eliminated, and previous individual particles are now
bonded together into a coherent, solid mass during the high-tempera-
ture sintering. Thus, good knowledge on densification properties of
moulded compacts during the sintering stage is indispensable to control
the hardness and dimensions of the sintered compacts. Though, it is not
easy to ascertain how densification takes place during sintering as it is a
complex process that involves several factors including particle mor-
phology and size distribution, sintering atmosphere, and heating rate
[51]. Normally, sintering temperature would be set within 70–90% of
melting temperature of the metals [213,214]. The temperature of the
moulded compacts is kept lower than its melting temperature within
the sintering furnace. The purpose is to fuse the structure and its parts
during re-crystallisation [215]. Throughout sintering process, significant
atomic diffusion and chemical changes will occur at the outer surface of
powder particle as the sintering temperature starts to increase from
one-half to two-third of its melting point. As the temperature increases,
thermolysis happens, which smolders off remaining polymeric sub-
stances from the binder. Furthermore, six mass transfer phenomena
were detected during sintering comprising plastic flow, grain boundary
diffusion, viscous flow, surface diffusion, lattice diffusion, and evapora-
tion–condensation [216]. Fig. 2 demonstrates a two-particle sintering
model with the spherical shape at the contact point. A neck was devel-
oped and then grown within both particles through mass transport. As
surface mechanisms prevailed by moving atoms via evaporation and
condensation, volume and surface diffusion ensued. Hence, throughout
sintering, two-particle powders do not move but remain in place. Nev-
ertheless, the atoms initiate the neck growth and increase the contact
length within the particles through grain boundary diffusion, volume
diffusion, and plastic fusion (as shown at the end of Fig. 2).
The increase of maximum sintering temperature also led to an in-
crease of tensile strength [203]. Similar to biocompatible metal, the
sintering parameters are the most important detail that must be consid-
ered since it can influence the condition of the final compacts. Tables 11
and 12 show the percentage of the sintering parameters that were used
for sintering process for biocompatible metals from years of 2001 to
2016.
From Table 11, most of the investigators preferred to choose temper-
atures ranging from 1300 to 1400 °C, sintering time from 1 to 2 h, and
heating rate from 5 to 10 °C/min for 316L SS alloys [38]. Choi, Lee et
al., (2015) stated that the densification rate of the 316L SS micro–
nanopowder increases rapidly for temperatures in the range of 1000
°C and 1100 °C with increasing from 68.7% theoretical density to 84.5%
theoretical density. After that, the densification process slowly proceeds
up to 1300 °C, where 91% theoretical density recorded. Previous work
also found that there is less porosity when the sintering temperature
for 316L SS increases from 1200 to 1250 °C which also causes the densi-
ty to be increased due to higher densification at a higher temperature.
The investigator had decided that the optimum sintering temperature
be 1250 °C, with a heating rate of 20 °C/min, a sintering time of
90 min and in vacuum environment [155].
The sintering process conducted by heating the parts inside a fur-
nace with the controlled atmosphere to a temperature lower than the
melting point of the parts. Since it is mandatory to avoid oxidation of
the parts, the reductive atmosphere is introduced by using nitrogen, hy-
drogen, argon or vacuum, depending on the material to be sintered.
With increasing sintering temperature and time, the porosity of

Table 9
Solvent debinding parameters for biocompatible metals (Years 2001–2016).

Alloy Temperature (°C) Utilisation (%) Time (h) Utilisation (%) solvent References

40 ≤ T b 50 21
0≤tb5 36
50 ≤ T b 60 14 Hexane
316L stainless steel 5 ≤ t b 10 45 [51,148,170,171,191–193,199]
60 ≤ T b 70 50 Heptane
10 ≤ t b 15 18
90 ≤ T b 100 14
30 ≤ T b 40 5
0≤tb5 6
40 ≤ T b 50 53
5 ≤ t b 10 22
50 ≤ T b 60 11
10 ≤ t b 15 17 Hexane
Titanium and its alloys 60 ≤ T b 70 16 [48,182–184,202,204,205]
15 ≤ t b 20 11 water bath
70 ≤ T b 80 5
20 ≤ t b 25 39
80 ≤ T b 90 5
45 ≤ t b 50 6
150 ≤ T b 160 5
0≤tb5 25 Water
Cobalt-based alloys 60 ≤ T b 70 100 [74,185–187,189,190,209]
5 ≤ t b 10 75 Heptane
 M.F.F.A. Hamidi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 78 (2017) 1263–1276 1271

Table 10
Thermal debinding parameters for biocompatible metals (Years 2001–2016).

Alloy Temperature (°C) Utilisation (%) Time (h) Utilisation (%) Heating rate (°C/min) Utilisation (%) References

200 ≤ T b 300 15
300 ≤ T b 400 3
0≤tb5 75 1 ≤ HR b 5 73
400 ≤ T b 500 26
5≤tb0 4 5 ≤ HR b 10 14
316L stainless steel 500 ≤ T b 600 32 [38,51,148,168,170,171,191–194,199,210]
20 ≤ t b 25 17 10 ≤ H b 15 9
600 ≤ T b 700 15
25 ≤ t b 30 4 15 ≤ HR b 20 5
800 ≤ T b 900 6
900 ≤ T b 1000 3
400 ≤ T b 500 43
500 ≤ T b 600 29 0≤tb5 75 1 ≤ HR b 5 67
Titanium and its alloys [48,182–184,202,204,205]
600 ≤ T b 700 14 5 ≤ t b 10 25 5 ≤ HR b 10 33
700 ≤ T b 800 14
400 ≤ T b 500 80
Cobalt based alloys 0≤tb5 100 1 ≤ HR b 5 100 [74,185–187,189,190,209]
900 ≤ T b 1000 20

sintered specimen would decrease accompanying simultaneous grain
growth [217].
For titanium and its alloys, the investigators opt for a temperature
range between 1200 and 1300 °C, sintering time between 3 and 6 h,
and heating rate between 10 and 15 °C/min. Excellent mechanical prop-
erties are difficult to be obtained by using only one parameter [177].
Hayat, Wen et al. (2015) had stated that the MIM Ti–16Nb alloy sintered
at 1500 °C exhibited an excellent combination of high strength and low
Young's modulus for biomedical application.
Contrary to titanium, research that has been done by using cobalt-
based alloy usually employed a temperature range between 1300 and
1400 °C, sintering time between 1 and 2 h and heating rate between 0
and 5 °C/min and 10 to 15 °C/min. Previous work from Omar, Sauti et
al., had found that the drastic increase in the strength value obtained
when specimens sintered at 1360 to 1380 °C. The optimum sintering
temperature was set to 1390 °C [222].
From Table 12, investigators preferred used vacuum environment as
the sintering atmosphere for all three biocompatible metals. Several
types of atmospheres can be utilised for MIM sintering including air,
vacuum, hydrogen, inert gasses, nitrogen, dissociated ammonia and
natural gas. The most important thing to consider during sintering pro-
cess is the equilibrium between reactant and product. When it comes to
reactive materials, inert gasses such as argon and helium are favored as
they are highly purified and reduce evaporation [215]. Compared to
other sintering atmospheres, sintering in vacuum results in reactions
at low pressure hence allowing a reproducible, clean, and nonreactive
atmosphere for sintered compacts. A previous study by [223] also stated
that vacuum atmosphere would give better properties to the sintered
part as they found that compacts sintered in a vacuum atmosphere
demonstrated lower friction coefficient and wear rate compared to a
hydrogen atmosphere.
4. MIM challenges
The critical drawback in the proposed MIM method is the present of
pores on the sintered part. The existent of pores will lead to corrosion
spell. The microstructure produced by different heat treatments will to-
tally affect the corrosion rate of the parts. The corrosion resistance might
be affected by the microstructure which is influenced by the thermal
treatment applied to the material. Two main factors affect the micro-
structure containing pores on the corrosion resistance property are:
first is the lack of passivation within pore; second is the internal high
surface area of sintered parts (greater than surface area of the external
geometric surface area) which is believed more vulnerable to corrosion
attack [224]. Thus, to overcome this problem, three parameters can be
improved which is the corrosion resistance: sintering atmosphere, den-
sity, and material composition. It has been shown that by increasing the
sintered density, the pore area over which corrosion attack occurs de-
creases. Where else, to achieve high densification, the sintering atmo-
sphere, and sintering temperature play significant roles, plus rapid
cooling from sintering temperature maintains the homogenous chromi-
um distribution hence improve the corrosion resistance.
From the previous study by Aslam, M. et al. [215], they investigated
the effect of cooling rate on the corrosion resistance of 316L stainless
steel. They found that higher cooling rate for sintering process will cre-
ate the formation of a passive layer on the outer surface and its help in
improving the corrosion resistance of the sintered samples. Besides,
the higher cooling rate also leads to improved mechanical properties
due to the formation of reduced grain size. The formation of chromium
atomic layer on outer surface of sintered sample believed helped by the
sintering in a vacuum atmosphere. When these components exposed to
the oxidizing environment, a nano-passive layer is formed. Once a film
is developed, the reaction rate between the environment and the
metal will decrease, and this will shield the samples from further
corrosion.

5. Future prospects

It is already known that the metallic implants in the biomedical in-

Fig. 2. Two-particle sintering model. dustry have few major issues to be addressed specifically the low
1272 M.F.F.A. Hamidi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 78 (2017) 1263–1276

Table 11
Sintering parameter for biocompatible metals (Years 2001–2016).

Alloys Temperature (°C) Utilisation (%) Time (h) Utilisation (%) Heating rate (°C/min) Utilisation (%) References

800 ≤ T b 900 3
0≤tb1 20
900 ≤ T b 1000 9 0 ≤ HR b 5 4
1≤tb2 44
1000 ≤ T b 1100 4 5 ≤ HR b 10 54
2≤tb3 27
316L stainless steel 1100 ≤ T b 1200 7 10 ≤ HR b 15 27 [38,51,165,168,171,195,198,217–220]
3≤tb4 2
1200 ≤ T b 1300 16 15 ≤ HR b 20 4
4≤tb5 2
1300 ≤ T b 1400 59 20 ≤ HR b 25 12
5≤tb6 4
1400 ≤ T b 1500 1
900 ≤ T b 1000 6
1000 ≤ T b 1100 3
0≤tb3 42
1100 ≤ T b 1200 12 0 ≤ HR b 5 20
3≤tb6 47
Titanium and its alloy 1200 ≤ T b 1300 30 5 ≤ HR b 10 20 [119,182–184,206]
6≤tb9 5
1300 ≤ T b 1400 24 10 ≤ HR b 15 60
9 ≤ t b 12 5
1400 ≤ T b 1500 9
1500 ≤ T b 1600 15
0≤tb1 28
1200 ≤ T b 1300 36 0 ≤ HR b 5 43
1≤tb2 57
Cobalt based alloy 1300 ≤ T b 1400 57 5 ≤ HR b 10 14 [74,185–187,189,190,209]
2≤tb3 0
1400 ≤ T b 1500 7 10 ≤ HR b 15 43
3≤tb4 14

corrosion resistance and mechanical properties. Investigators are cur- has enhanced the demand for MIM parts used in automotive, aerospace
rently attempting to use metallic instead of non-metallic implants be- and also medical equipment.
cause of their superior biocompatibility. On the other hand, non-
metallic implants cannot compete with the metallic materials in terms 6. Conclusion
of durability, toughness, and strength. Some recent investigators have
made an effort to use the non-metallic implants instead of metal im- This paper has examined three groups of biocompatible metals that
plants. Significant efforts have been taken to alter the surface of non- are commonly used for biomedical applications. The strengths and
metallic implants either through mechanical, physical and chemical ap- weaknesses pertaining to mechanical properties and corrosion resis-
proaches to somewhat match the metallic implants. Unfortunately, this tance of these biocompatible metals have also been reviewed. In com-
attempt came with limitations especially during surface modification as parison with other biocompatible metals, titanium and its alloys have
the non-metallic implant is still vulnerable to corrosion attack due to demonstrated the best biocompatibility with exceptional mechanical
non-uniform, and porous surface coating layer. properties and are, therefore, satisfactory materials for biomedical ap-
Among of the three biocompatible metals that discussed in this plications. Various promising parameters for MIM process for biocom-
paper, the titanium and its alloys are the most favorable biocompatible patible metals are under continuous investigation. Generally, at the
metal preferred by the present researchers. These are due to the advan- moment, the current parameters have given the best result in terms of
tages of titanium alloys as it possesses excellent corrosion resistance, density and mechanical properties and are widely accepted and used
biocompatibility, and mechanical properties. Besides, titanium also ex- in MIM technology. Most of the investigators opted for high powder
hibits low Young's modulus compared to stainless steel and cobalt loading in addition to multicomponent binders for feedstock prepara-
based alloy (comparable to human bone). For future medical industries tion. During the de-binding stage, a slow heating rate was preferred,
technology, titanium and its alloys seem to be the most preferred metal whereas, for sintering, high sintering temperature in a vacuum atmo-
for a long-term bio-device component. MIM process parameters will sphere was adopted by the investigators as it resulted in higher relative
nevertheless remain the same as there are no significant differences in density with better mechanical properties for the final sintered
the trend of the parameters used by investigators such as powder load- compacts.
ing, binder materials, de-binding, and sintering parameters.
The increasing demand for small parts in the medical equipment, Acknowledgement
consumer products, and the automotive industry is expected to boost
up market demand over the coming years. According to a new report Universiti Malaysia Pahang fully supports the facilities and resources
by Grand View Research, Inc., the global MIM market size is projected for this research. The author W.S. W. Harun would like to acknowledge
to realize USD 6.52 billion by 2025. MIM process enables the fabrication the support of the internal grant of Universiti Malaysia Pahang
of an enormous amount of components with remarkable precision; this RDU141101, RDU140354, RDU150337, RDU160337, the support of Re-
search Acculturation Collaborative Effort (RACE) RDU151314, and Re-
search Acculturation Grant Scheme (RAGS) RDU151404 provided by
the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia.
Table 12
Sintering atmosphere for biocompatible metals (Years 2001–2016).
References
Alloys Sintering Utilisation References
atmosphere (%) [1] J. Malekani, B. Schmutz, Y. Gu, M. Schuetz, P.K. Yarlagadda, Biomaterials in ortho-
pedic bone plates: a reviewProceedings of the 2nd Annual International Confer-
Vacuum 53 ence on Materials Science, Metal & Manufacturing (M3 2011) 2011, pp. 71–77.
316L stainless Hydrogen 31 [2] K.S. Katti, Biomaterials in total joint replacement, Colloids Surf. B: Biointerfaces 39
[38,165,167,168,170,171,200,221]
steel Argon 9 (12/10/2004) 133–142.
Nitrogen 6 [3] A.H. Hussein, M.A.H. Gepreel, M.K. Gouda, A.M. Hefnawy, S.H. Kandil, Biocompati-
Titanium and its Vacuum 62 bility of new Ti–Nb–Ta base alloys, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 61 (4/1/2016) 574–578.
[182–184]
alloy Argon 38 [4] Z. Ozdemir, A. Ozdemir, G.B. Basim, Application of chemical mechanical polishing
Vacuum 50 process on titanium based implants, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 68 (11/1/2016) 383–396.
Cobalt based Hydrogen 17 [5] H. Hermawan, D. Ramdan, J.R. Djuansjah, Metals for Biomedical Applications,
[189,190] INTECH Open Access Publisher, 2011.
alloy Argon 17
[6] M. Xiao, Y.M. Chen, M.N. Biao, X.D. Zhang, B.C. Yang, Bio-functionalization of bio-
Nitrogen 17
medical metals, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 70 (Jan 1 2017) 1057–1070.
 M.F.F.A. Hamidi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 78 (2017) 1263–1276
[7] G. Miranda, A. Araújo, F. Bartolomeu, M. Buciumeanu, O. Carvalho, J.C.M. Souza,
et al., Design of Ti6Al4V-HA composites produced by hot pressing for biomedical
applications, Mater. Des. 108 (10/15/2016) 488–493.
[8] P. Fernandes Santos, M. Niinomi, H. Liu, K. Cho, M. Nakai, A. Trenggono, et al., Im-
provement of microstructure, mechanical and corrosion properties of biomedical
Ti-Mn alloys by Mo addition, Mater. Des. 110 (2016) 414–424.
[9] M. Cieślik, M. Kot, W. Reczyński, K. Engvall, W. Rakowski, A. Kotarba, Parylene coat-
ings on stainless steel 316L surface for medical applications — Mechanical and pro-
tective properties, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 32 (1/1/2012) 31–35.
[10] M. Grądzka-Dahlke, J.R. Dąbrowski, B. Dąbrowski, Modification of mechanical
properties of sintered implant materials on the base of Co–Cr–Mo alloy, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 204 (8/11/2008) 199–205.
[11] R.I.M. Asri, W.S.W. Harun, M.A. Hassan, S.A.C. Ghani, Z. Buyong, A review of hy-
droxyapatite-based coating techniques: sol–gel and electrochemical depositions
on biocompatible metals, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 57 (2016) 95–108.
[12] Q. Chen, G.A. Thouas, Metallic implant biomaterials, Mater. Sci. Eng. R. Rep. 87 (1/
2015) 1–57.
[13] D. BomBač, M. Brojan, P. Fajfar, F. Kosel, R. Turk, Review of materials in medical ap-
plications Pregled materialov v medicinskih aplikacijah, RMZ-Mater. Geoenviron.
54 (2007) 471–499.
[14] E. Vanderleyden, S. Van Bael, Y.C. Chai, J.P. Kruth, J. Schrooten, P. Dubruel, Gelatin
functionalised porous titanium alloy implants for orthopaedic applications,
Mater. Sci. Eng. C 42 (9/1/2014) 396–404.
[15] M. Li, T. Yin, Y. Wang, F. Du, X. Zou, H. Gregersen, et al., Study of biocompatibility of
medical grade high nitrogen nickel-free austenitic stainless steel in vitro, Mater.
Sci. Eng. C 43 (10/1/2014) 641–648.
[16] K.J. Qiu, W.J. Lin, F.Y. Zhou, H.Q. Nan, B.L. Wang, L. Li, et al., Ti–Ga binary alloys de-
veloped as potential dental materials, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 34 (1/1/2014) 474–483.
[17] H. Wang, J. Li, H. Yang, C. Liu, J. Ruan, Fabrication, characterization and in vitro bio-
compatibility evaluation of porous Ta–Nb alloy for bone tissue engineering, Mater.
Sci. Eng. C 40 (7/1/2014) 71–75.
[18] V. Geanta, I. Voiculescu, R. Stefanoiu, E.R. Rusu, Stainless steels with biocompatible
properties for medical devices, Key Engineering Materials 2014, pp. 9–15.
[19] T. Akahori, M. Niinomi, H. Fukui, M. Ogawa, H. Toda, Improvement in fatigue char-
acteristics of newly developed beta type titanium alloy for biomedical applications
by thermo-mechanical treatments, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 25 (5/2005) 248–254.
[20] V. Sheremetyev, V. Brailovski, S. Prokoshkin, K. Inaekyan, S. Dubinskiy, Functional
fatigue behavior of superelastic beta Ti-22Nb-6Zr(at%) alloy for load-bearing bio-
medical applications, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 58 (1/1/2016) 935–944.
[21] R. Yi, H. Liu, D. Yi, W. Wan, B. Wang, Y. Jiang, et al., Precipitation hardening and mi-
crostructure evolution of the Ti–7Nb–10Mo alloy during aging, Mater. Sci. Eng. C
63 (6/1/2016) 577–586.
[22] M.R. Kaluderovic, J.P. Schreckenbach, H.L. Graf, Titanium dental implant surfaces
obtained by anodic spark deposition - from the past to the future, Mater. Sci.
Eng. C 69 (Dec 1 2016) 1429–1441.
[23] E. Velasco-Ortega, C.A. Alfonso-Rodríguez, L. Monsalve-Guil, A. España-López, A.
Jiménez-Guerra, I. Garzón, et al., Relevant aspects in the surface properties in titanium
dental implants for the cellular viability, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 64 (7/1/2016) 1–10.
[24] D.R.N. Correa, F.B. Vicente, T.A.G. Donato, V.E. Arana-Chavez, M.A.R. Buzalaf, C.R.
Grandini, The effect of the solute on the structure, selected mechanical properties,
and biocompatibility of Ti–Zr system alloys for dental applications, Mater. Sci. Eng.
C 34 (1/1/2014) 354–359.
[25] N.G.G. Muruve, Y.F. Cheng, Y. Feng, T. Liu, D.A. Muruve, D.J. Hassett, et al., Peptide-
based biocoatings for corrosion protection of stainless steel biomaterial in a chlo-
ride solution, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 68 (11/1/2016) 695–700.
[26] A. Dudek, R. Włodarczyk, Effect of sintering atmosphere on properties of porous
stainless steel for biomedical applications, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 33 (1/1/2013)
434–439.
[27] A.E.A. Maya, D.R. Grana, A. Hazarabedian, G.A. Kokubu, M.I. Luppo, G. Vigna, Zr–Ti–
Nb porous alloys for biomedical application, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 32 (3/1/2012)
321–329.
[28] A. Arifin, A.B. Sulong, N. Muhamad, J. Syarif, M.I. Ramli, Material processing of hy-
droxyapatite and titanium alloy (HA/Ti) composite as implant materials using
powder metallurgy: a review, Mater. Des. 55 (2014) 165–175.
[29] M. Sumita, T. Hanawa, S.H. Teoh, Development of nitrogen-containing nickel-free
austenitic stainless steels for metallic biomaterials—review, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 24
(12/1/2004) 753–760.
[30] D.M. Gordin, R. Ion, C. Vasilescu, S.I. Drob, A. Cimpean, T. Gloriant, Potentiality of
the “Gum Metal” titanium-based alloy for biomedical applications, Mater. Sci.
Eng. C 44 (11/1/2014) 362–370.
[31] A. Cimpean, E. Vasilescu, P. Drob, I. Cinca, C. Vasilescu, M. Anastasescu, et al., En-
hancement of the electrochemical behaviour and biological performance of Ti–
25Ta–5Zr alloy by thermo-mechanical processing, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 38 (5/1/
2014) 127–142.
[32] R.I.M. Asri, W.S.W. Harun, M. Samykano, N.A.C. Lah, S.A.C. Ghani, F. Tarlochan, et al.,
Corrosion and surface modification on biocompatible metals: a review, Mater. Sci.
Eng. C (2017) (in press).
[33] N.S. Manam, W.S.W. Harun, D.N.A. Shri, S.A.C. Ghani, T. Kurniawan, M.H. Ismail,
et al., Study of corrosion in biocompatible metals for implants: a review, J. Alloys
Compd. 701 (2017) 698–715.
[34] L. Bolzoni, E.M. Ruiz-Navas, E. Gordo, Feasibility study of the production of biomed-
ical Ti–6Al–4V alloy by powder metallurgy, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 49 (4/1/2015)
400–407.
[35] Y. Torres, S. Lascano, J. Bris, J. Pavón, J.A. Rodriguez, Development of porous titani-
um for biomedical applications: a comparison between loose sintering and space-
holder techniques, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 37 (4/1/2014) 148–155.
1273
[36] J. Rivard, V. Brailovski, S. Dubinskiy, S. Prokoshkin, Fabrication, morphology and
mechanical properties of Ti and metastable Ti-based alloy foams for biomedical ap-
plications, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 45 (12/1/2014) 421–433.
[37] E. Gemelli, J. de Jesus, N.H.A. Camargo, G.D. de Almeida Soares, V.A.R. Henriques, F.
Nery, Microstructural study of a titanium-based biocomposite produced by the
powder metallurgy process with TiH2 and nanometric β-TCP powders, Mater.
Sci. Eng. C 32 (5/1/2012) 1011–1015.
[38] J.-P. Choi, G.-Y. Lee, J.-I. Song, W.-S. Lee, J.-S. Lee, Sintering behavior of 316L stain-
less steel micro–nanopowder compact fabricated by powder injection molding,
Powder Technol. 279 (7/2015) 196–202.
[39] Y. Liu, K. Li, T. Luo, M. Song, H. Wu, J. Xiao, et al., Powder metallurgical low-modu-
lus Ti–Mg alloys for biomedical applications, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 56 (11/1/2015)
241–250.
[40] A. Romero, G. Herranz, A.L. Morales, Study of magnetoelastic properties of pure
nickel parts produced by metal injection moulding, Mater. Des. 88 (12/25/2015)
438–445.
[41] A. Fayyaz, N. Muhamad, A.B. Sulong, J. Rajabi, Y.N. Wong, Fabrication of cemented
tungsten carbide components by micro-powder injection moulding, J. Mater. Pro-
cess. Technol. 214 (7/2014) 1436–1444.
[42] H.Ö. Gülsoy, Dry sliding wear in injection molded 17–4 PH stainless steel powder
with nickel boride additions, Wear 262 (2/4/2007) 491–497.
[43] S. Antusch, D.E.J. Armstrong, T.B. Britton, L. Commin, J.S.K.L. Gibson, H. Greuner,
et al., Mechanical and microstructural investigations of tungsten and doped tung-
sten materials produced via powder injection molding, Nucl. Mater. Energy 3–4 (7/
2015) 22–31.
[44] K.H. Kim, B.-T. Lee, C.-J. Choi, Fabrication and evaluation of powder injection
molded Fe–Ni sintered bodies using nano Fe–50%Ni powder, J. Alloys Compd.
491 (2/18/2010) 391–394.
[45] L. Zhang, D. Li, X. Qu, M. Qin, X. He, Z. Li, Microstructure and tensile properties op-
timization of MIM418 superalloy by heat treatment, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 227
(1/2016) 71–79.
[46] H.O. Gulsoy, S. Pazarlioglu, N. Gulsoy, B. Gundede, O. Mutlu, Effect of Zr, Nb and Ti
addition on injection molded 316L stainless steel for bio-applications: mechanical,
electrochemical and biocompatibility properties, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 51
(11/2015) 215–224.
[47] X. Kong, T. Barriere, J.C. Gelin, Determination of critical and optimal powder load-
ings for 316L fine stainless steel feedstocks for micro-powder injection molding, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 212 (11/2012) 2173–2182.
[48] A.T. Sidambe, I.A. Figueroa, H.G.C. Hamilton, I. Todd, Metal injection moulding of
CP-Ti components for biomedical applications, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 212 (7/
2012) 1591–1597.
[49] Y. Li, L. Li, K.A. Khalil, Effect of powder loading on metal injection molding stainless
steels, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 183 (3/23/2007) 432–439.
[50] A. Royer, T. Barriere, J.C. Gelin, The degradation of poly(ethylene glycol) in an
Inconel 718 feedstock in the metal injection moulding process, Powder Technol.
284 (11/2015) 467–474.
[51] D.Y. Park, S.W. Lee, S.J. Park, Y.-S. Kwon, I. Otsuka, Effects of particle sizes on
sintering behavior of 316L stainless steel powder, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 44
(2013) 1508–1518.
[52] R. Chakraborty, S. Sengupta, P. Saha, K. Das, S. Das, Synthesis of calcium hydrogen
phosphate and hydroxyapatite coating on SS316 substrate through pulsed electro-
deposition, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 69 (12/1/2016) 875–883.
[53] P.H. Long, Medical devices in orthopedic applications, Toxicol. Pathol. 36 (2008)
85–91.
[54] I. Ozbek, S. Sen, M. Ipek, C. Bindal, S. Zeytin, A. Hikmet Ucisik, A mechanical aspect
of borides formed on the AISI 440C stainless-steel, Vacuum 73 (4/19/2004)
643–648.
[55] C.T. Kwok, K.H. Lo, F.T. Cheng, H.C. Man, Effect of processing conditions on the cor-
rosion performance of laser surface-melted AISI 440C martensitic stainless steel,
Surf. Coat. Technol. 166 (3/24/2003) 221–230.
[56] B. Vamsi Krishna, A. Bandyopadhyay, Surface modification of AISI 410 stainless
steel using laser engineered net shaping (LENSTM), Mater. Des. 30 (5/2009)
1490–1496.
[57] C.E. Pinedo, W.A. Monteiro, On the kinetics of plasma nitriding a martensitic stain-
less steel type AISI 420, Surf. Coat. Technol. 179 (2/23/2004) 119–123.
[58] G. Binyamin, B.M. Shafi, C.M. Mery, Biomaterials: a primer for surgeons, Semin.
Pediatr. Surg. 15 (11/2006) 276–283.
[59] D.F. Williams, On the mechanisms of biocompatibility, Biomaterials 29 (7/2008)
2941–2953.
[60] J.A. Disegi, L. Eschbach, Stainless steel in bone surgery, Injury 31 (Supplement 4)
(12/2000) D2–D6.
[61] I. Özbek, B.A. Konduk, C. Bindal, A.H. Ucisik, Characterization of borided AISI 316L
stainless steel iplant, Vacuum 65 (5/27/2002) 521–525.
[62] A. Fonseca-García, J. Pérez-Alvarez, C.C. Barrera, J.C. Medina, A. Almaguer-Flores,
R.B. Sánchez, et al., The effect of simulated inflammatory conditions on the surface
properties of titanium and stainless steel and their importance as biomaterials,
Mater. Sci. Eng. C 66 (9/1/2016) 119–129.
[63] Y. Shen, B. Peng, G.S.-P. Cheung, Factors associated with the removal of fractured
NiTi instruments from root canal systems, Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral
Radiol. Endod. 98 (11/2004) 605–610.
[64] D.D. Deligianni, N. Katsala, S. Ladas, D. Sotiropoulou, J. Amedee, Y.F. Missirlis, Effect
of surface roughness of the titanium alloy Ti–6Al–4V on human bone marrow cell
response and on protein adsorption, Biomaterials 22 (6/1/2001) 1241–1251.
[65] E. Chlebus, B. Kuźnicka, T. Kurzynowski, B. Dybała, Microstructure and mechanical
behaviour of Ti―6Al―7Nb alloy produced by selective laser melting, Mater.
Charact. 62 (5/2011) 488–495.
1274 M.F.F.A. Hamidi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 78 (2017) 1263–1276
[66] D. Iijima, T. Yoneyama, H. Doi, H. Hamanaka, N. Kurosaki, Wear properties of Ti and
Ti–6Al–7Nb castings for dental prostheses, Biomaterials 24 (4/2003) 1519–1524.
[67] I. Golvano, I. Garcia, A. Conde, W. Tato, A. Aginagalde, Influence of fluoride content
and pH on corrosion and tribocorrosion behaviour of Ti13Nb13Zr alloy in oral en-
vironment, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 49 (9/2015) 186–196.
[68] K.-H. Frosch, K.M. Stürmer, Metallic biomaterials in skeletal repair, Eur. J. Trauma
32 (2006) 149–159.
[69] A. Bansiddhi, T.D. Sargeant, S.I. Stupp, D.C. Dunand, Porous NiTi for bone implants:
a review, Acta Biomater. 4 (7/2008) 773–782.
[70] G. Manivasagam, D. Dhinasekaran, A. Rajamanickam, Biomedical implants: corro-
sion and its prevention-a review, Recent Patents Corros. Sci. 2 (2010) 40–54.
[71] M.H. Ismail, R. Goodall, H.A. Davies, I. Todd, Formation of microporous NiTi by tran-
sient liquid phase sintering of elemental powders, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 4 (8/1/2012)
1480–1485.
[72] P. Gill, V. Musaramthota, N. Munroe, A. Datye, R. Dua, W. Haider, et al., Surface
modification of Ni–Ti alloys for stent application after magnetoelectropolishing,
Mater. Sci. Eng. C 50 (5/1/2015) 37–44.
[73] Y. Yan, A. Neville, D. Dowson, Tribo-corrosion properties of cobalt-based medical
implant alloys in simulated biological environments, Wear 263 (9/10/2007)
1105–1111.
[74] N. Abdulah, M.A. Omar, S.B. Jamaludin, N.M. Zainon, N. Roslani, B. Meh, et al., Inno-
vative metal injection molding (MIM) method for producing CoCrMo alloy metallic
prosthesis for orthopedic applications, Advanced Materials Research 2014,
pp. 102–106.
[75] Y.D. Siraparapu, S. Bassa, P.D. Sanasi, A review on recent applications of biomate-
rials, Int. J. Sci. Res. (2013) 70–75.
[76] M. Dewidar, Influence of processing parameters and sintering atmosphere on the
mechanical properties and microstructure of porous 316L stainless steel for possi-
ble hard-tissue applications, Int. J. Mech. Mechatron. Eng. 12 (2012) 10–24.
[77] M. Talha, C.K. Behera, O.P. Sinha, A review on nickel-free nitrogen containing aus-
tenitic stainless steels for biomedical applications, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 33 (10/2013)
3563–3575.
[78] K. Alvarez, K. Sato, S.K. Hyun, H. Nakajima, Fabrication and properties of Lotus-type
porous nickel-free stainless steel for biomedical applications, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 28
(1/10/2008) 44–50.
[79] S. Santavirta, Y.T. Konttinen, R. Lappalainen, A. Anttila, S.B. Goodman, M. Lind, et al.,
Materials in total joint replacement, Curr. Orthop. 12 (1/1998) 51–57.
[80] C. Cui, B. Hu, L. Zhao, S. Liu, Titanium alloy production technology, market pros-
pects and industry development, Mater. Des. 32 (3/2011) 1684–1691.
[81] K. Zhuravleva, A. Chivu, A. Teresiak, S. Scudino, M. Calin, L. Schultz, et al., Porous
low modulus Ti40Nb compacts with electrodeposited hydroxyapatite coating for
biomedical applications, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 33 (5/1/2013) 2280–2287.
[82] A. Abrishamchian, T. Hooshmand, M. Mohammadi, F. Najafi, Preparation and char-
acterization of multi-walled carbon nanotube/hydroxyapatite nanocomposite film
dip coated on Ti–6Al–4V by sol–gel method for biomedical applications: an in vitro
study, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 33 (5/1/2013) 2002–2010.
[83] M. Chembath, J.N. Balaraju, M. Sujata, Surface characteristics, corrosion and bioac-
tivity of chemically treated biomedical grade NiTi alloy, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 56 (11/1/
2015) 417–425.
[84] A. Roguska, M. Pisarek, M. Andrzejczuk, M. Dolata, M. Lewandowska, M. Janik-
Czachor, Characterization of a calcium phosphate–TiO2 nanotube composite
layer for biomedical applications, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 31 (7/20/2011) 906–914.
[85] S. Ferraris, S. Spriano, Antibacterial titanium surfaces for medical implants, Mater.
Sci. Eng. C 61 (4/1/2016) 965–978.
[86] Y. Liu, G. Jiang, G. He, Enhancement of entangled porous titanium by BisGMA for
load-bearing biomedical applications, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 61 (4/1/2016) 37–41.
[87] I. Kopova, J. Stráský, P. Harcuba, M. Landa, M. Janeček, L. Bačákova, Newly devel-
oped Ti–Nb–Zr–Ta–Si–Fe biomedical beta titanium alloys with increased strength
and enhanced biocompatibility, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 60 (3/1/2016) 230–238.
[88] M. Niinomi, T. Akahori, S. Katsura, K. Yamauchi, M. Ogawa, Mechanical character-
istics and microstructure of drawn wire of Ti–29Nb–13Ta–4.6Zr for biomedical ap-
plications, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 27 (1/2007) 154–161.
[89] D.M. Gordin, D. Busardo, A. Cimpean, C. Vasilescu, D. Höche, S.I. Drob, et al., Design
of a nitrogen-implanted titanium-based superelastic alloy with optimized proper-
ties for biomedical applications, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 33 (10/2013) 4173–4182.
[90] A. Hynowska, E. Pellicer, J. Fornell, S. González, N. van Steenberge, S. Suriñach, et al.,
Nanostructured β-phase Ti–31.0Fe–9.0Sn and sub-μm structured Ti–39.3Nb–
13.3Zr–10.7Ta alloys for biomedical applications: Microstructure benefits on the me-
chanical and corrosion performances, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 32 (12/1/2012) 2418–2425.
[91] M. Atapour, A.L. Pilchak, G.S. Frankel, J.C. Williams, Corrosion behavior of β titani-
um alloys for biomedical applications, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 31 (7/20/2011) 885–891.
[92] S.N. Saud, R. Hosseinian, S.H.R. Bakhsheshi-Rad, F. Yaghoubidoust, N. Iqbal, E.
Hamzah, et al., Corrosion and bioactivity performance of graphene oxide coating
on TiNb shape memory alloys in simulated body fluid, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 68 (11/
1/2016) 687–694.
[93] E. Zhang, S. Li, J. Ren, L. Zhang, Y. Han, Effect of extrusion processing on the micro-
structure, mechanical properties, biocorrosion properties and antibacterial proper-
ties of Ti-Cu sintered alloys, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 69 (12/1/2016) 760–768.
[94] D. Pradhan, A.W. Wren, S.T. Misture, N.P. Mellott, Investigating the structure and
biocompatibility of niobium and titanium oxides as coatings for orthopedic metal-
lic implants, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 58 (1/1/2016) 918–926.
[95] S. Bauer, P. Schmuki, K. von der Mark, J. Park, Engineering biocompatible implant
surfaces: part I: materials and surfaces, Prog. Mater. Sci. 58 (4/2013) 261–326.
[96] M.W.D. Mendes, C.G. Ágreda, A.H.A. Bressiani, J.C. Bressiani, A new titanium based
alloy Ti–27Nb–13Zr produced by powder metallurgy with biomimetic coating for
use as a biomaterial, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 63 (6/1/2016) 671–677.
[97] J. Lu, Y. Zhao, H. Niu, Y. Zhang, Y. Du, W. Zhang, et al., Electrochemical corrosion be-
havior and elasticity properties of Ti–6Al–xFe alloys for biomedical applications,
Mater. Sci. Eng. C 62 (5/1/2016) 36–44.
[98] J. Vaithilingam, E. Prina, R.D. Goodridge, R.J.M. Hague, S. Edmondson, F.R.A.J. Rose,
et al., Surface chemistry of Ti6Al4V components fabricated using selective laser
melting for biomedical applications, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 67 (10/1/2016) 294–303.
[99] M. Niinomi, Fatigue characteristics of metallic biomaterials, Int. J. Fatigue 29 (6/
2007) 992–1000.
[100] D. Arola, D. Bajaj, J. Ivancik, H. Majd, D. Zhang, Fatigue of biomaterials: hard tissues,
Int. J. Fatigue 32 (9/2010) 1400–1412.
[101] M. Niinomi, Mechanical properties of biomedical titanium alloys, Mater. Sci. Eng. A
243 (3/15/1998) 231–236.
[102] M. Abdel-Hady Gepreel, M. Niinomi, Biocompatibility of Ti-alloys for long-term im-
plantation, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 20 (4/2013) 407–415.
[103] M. Niinomi, M. Nakai, J. Hieda, Development of new metallic alloys for biomedical
applications, Acta Biomater. 8 (11/2012) 3888–3903.
[104] M. Geetha, A.K. Singh, R. Asokamani, A.K. Gogia, Ti based biomaterials, the ultimate
choice for orthopaedic implants – a review, Prog. Mater. Sci. 54 (5/2009) 397–425.
[105] M. Niinomi, Mechanical biocompatibilities of titanium alloys for biomedical appli-
cations, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 1 (1/2008) 30–42.
[106] H.J. Rack, J.I. Qazi, Titanium alloys for biomedical applications, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 26
(9/2006) 1269–1277.
[107] S. Kurosu, H. Matsumoto, A. Chiba, Grain refinement of biomedical Co–27Cr–5Mo–
0.16N alloy by reverse transformation, Mater. Lett. 64 (1/15/2010) 49–52.
[108] E. Zhang, C. Liu, A new antibacterial Co-Cr-Mo-Cu alloy: preparation, biocorrosion,
mechanical and antibacterial property, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 69 (12/1/2016) 134–143.
[109] R. Liu, M.X. Yao, X. Wu, Influence of carbon content in cobalt-based superalloys on
mechanical and wear properties, J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 126 (2004) 204–212.
[110] B. Al-Mangour, R. Mongrain, E. Irissou, S. Yue, Improving the strength and corro-
sion resistance of 316L stainless steel for biomedical applications using cold
spray, Surf. Coat. Technol. 216 (2/15/2013) 297–307.
[111] L. Mishnaevsky Jr., E. Levashov, R.Z. Valiev, J. Segurado, I. Sabirov, N. Enikeev, et al.,
Nanostructured titanium-based materials for medical implants: Modeling and de-
velopment, Mater. Sci. Eng. R. Rep. 81 (7/2014) 1–19.
[112] L.M.R. de Vasconcellos, C.A.A. Cairo, L.G.O. de Vasconcellos, M.L. de Alencastro
Graça, R.F. do Prado, Y.R. Carvalho, Porous Titanium by Powder Metallurgy for Bio-
medical Application: Characterization, Cell Citotoxity and in vivo Tests of
Osseointegration, INTECH Open Access Publisher, 2012.
[113] A. Biesiekierski, J. Wang, M. Abdel-Hady Gepreel, C. Wen, A new look at biomedical
Ti-based shape memory alloys, Acta Biomater. 8 (5/2012) 1661–1669.
[114] M.M. Dewidar, K.A. Khalil, J.K. Lim, Processing and mechanical properties of porous
316L stainless steel for biomedical applications, Trans. Nonferrous Metals Soc.
China 17 (6/2007) 468–473.
[115] U.I. Thomann, P.J. Uggowitzer, Wear–corrosion behavior of biocompatible austen-
itic stainless steels, Wear 239 (4/2000) 48–58.
[116] C. Liu, G. Lin, D. Yang, M. Qi, In vitro corrosion behavior of multilayered Ti/TiN coat-
ing on biomedical AISI 316L stainless steel, Surf. Coat. Technol. 200 (3/31/2006)
4011–4016.
[117] M. Calin, A. Gebert, A.C. Ghinea, P.F. Gostin, S. Abdi, C. Mickel, et al., Designing bio-
compatible Ti-based metallic glasses for implant applications, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 33
(3/1/2013) 875–883.
[118] R. Karre, M.K. Niranjan, S.R. Dey, First principles theoretical investigations of low
Young's modulus beta Ti–Nb and Ti–Nb–Zr alloys compositions for biomedical ap-
plications, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 50 (5/1/2015) 52–58.
[119] D. Zhao, K. Chang, T. Ebel, M. Qian, R. Willumeit, M. Yan, et al., Microstructure and
mechanical behavior of metal injection molded Ti–Nb binary alloys as biomedical
material, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 28 (12/2013) 171–182.
[120] D. Li, H. Hou, Z. Tan, K. Lee, Metal injection molding of pure molybdenum, Adv.
Powder Technol. 20 (9/2009) 480–487.
[121] K.-H. Lin, Wear behavior and mechanical performance of metal injection molded
Fe–2Ni sintered components, Mater. Des. 32 (3/2011) 1273–1282.
[122] Z.Y. Liu, D. Kent, G.B. Schaffer, Powder injection moulding of an Al–AlN metal ma-
trix composite, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 513–514 (7/15/2009) 352–356.
[123] Z. Baojun, Q. Xuanhui, T. Ying, Powder injection molding of WC–8%Co tungsten
cemented carbide, Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater. 20 (12/2002) 389–394.
[124] P.F. Santos, M. Niinomi, H. Liu, K. Cho, M. Nakai, Y. Itoh, et al., Fabrication of low-
cost beta-type Ti–Mn alloys for biomedical applications by metal injection molding
process and their mechanical properties, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 59 (6/
2016) 497–507.
[125] G. Aggarwal, I. Smid, S.J. Park, R.M. German, Development of niobium powder in-
jection molding. Part II: debinding and sintering, Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater.
25 (5/2007) 226–236.
[126] J. Cheng, L. Wan, Y. Cai, J. Zhu, P. Song, J. Dong, Fabrication of W–20 wt.%Cu alloys
by powder injection molding, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 210 (1/1/2010) 137–142.
[127] Ö. Özgün, H. Özkan Gülsoy, R. Yilmaz, F. Findik, Injection molding of nickel based
625 superalloy: sintering, heat treatment, microstructure and mechanical proper-
ties, J. Alloys Compd. 546 (1/5/2013) 192–207.
[128] H. Özkan Gülsoy, Ç. Karataş, Development of poly(2-ethyl-2-oxaline) based water-
soluble binder for injection molding of stainless steel powder, Mater. Des. 28
(2007) 2488–2491.
[129] H.-J. Sung, T.K. Ha, S. Ahn, Y.W. Chang, Powder injection molding of a 17–4 PH
stainless steel and the effect of sintering temperature on its microstructure and
mechanical properties, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 130–131 (12/20/2002) 321–327.
[130] P. Mariot, M.A. Leeflang, L. Schaeffer, J. Zhou, An investigation on the properties of
injection-molded pure iron potentially for biodegradable stent application, Powder
Technol. 294 (6/2016) 226–235.
 M.F.F.A. Hamidi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 78 (2017) 1263–1276
[131] H.Ö. Gülsoy, Ö. Özgün, S. Bilketay, Powder injection molding of Stellite 6 powder:
Sintering, microstructural and mechanical properties, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 651 (1/
10/2016) 914–924.
[132] Y. Thomas, E. Baril, J.F. Hetu, F. Ilinca, Development of titanium dental implant by
MIM: experiments and simulation, Adv. Powder Metall. Part. Mater. (2009) 4-
81–4-94.
[133] A. Arifin, A.B. Sulong, N. Muhamad, J. Syarif, M.I. Ramli, Powder injection molding
of HA/Ti6Al4V composite using palm stearin as based binder for implant material,
Mater. Des. 65 (1/2015) 1028–1034.
[134] V. Melli, M. Juszczyk, E. Sandrini, G. Bolelli, B. Bonferroni, L. Lusvarghi, et al., Tribo-
logical and mechanical performance evaluation of metal prosthesis components
manufactured via metal injection molding, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 26 (2015)
1–11.
[135] V. Melli, G. Rondelli, E. Sandrini, L. Altomare, G. Bolelli, B. Bonferroni, et al., Metal
injection molding as enabling technology for the production of metal prosthesis
components: electrochemical and in vitro characterization, J. Biomed. Mater. Res.
B Appl. Biomater. 101 (2013) 1294–1301.
[136] M.H. Elahinia, M. Hashemi, M. Tabesh, S.B. Bhaduri, Manufacturing and processing
of NiTi implants: a review, Prog. Mater. Sci. 57 (6/2012) 911–946.
[137] I.D. Jung, J.M. Park, J.-H. Yu, T.G. Kang, S.J. Kim, S.J. Park, Particle size effect on the
magneto-rheological behavior of powder injection molding feedstock, Mater.
Charact. 94 (8/2014) 19–25.
[138] S.Y. Heng, N. Muhamad, A.B. Sulong, A. Fayyaz, S.M. Amin, Effect of sintering tem-
perature on the mechanical and physical properties of WC–10%Co through micro-
powder injection molding (μPIM), Ceram. Int. 39 (5/2013) 4457–4464.
[139] J. Ma, M. Qin, L. Zhang, R. Zhang, L. Tian, X. Zhang, et al., Magnetic properties of Fe–
50%Ni alloy fabricated by metal injection molding, Mater. Des. 51 (10/2013)
1018–1022.
[140] L. Moballegh, J. Morshedian, M. Esfandeh, Copper injection molding using a ther-
moplastic binder based on paraffin wax, Mater. Lett. 59 (9/2005) 2832–2837.
[141] R. Rothon, Particulate-filled Polymer Composites, 2003.
[142] P. James, Particle deformation during cold isostatic pressing of metal powders,
Powder Metall. 20 (1977) 199–204.
[143] D.F. Heaney, Handbook of Metal Injection Molding, Elsevier, 2012.
[144] O. Ertugrul, H.S. Park, K. Onel, M. Willert-Porada, Effect of particle size and heating
rate in microwave sintering of 316L stainless steel, Powder Technol. 253 (2/2014)
703–709.
[145] M.T. Zaky, F.S. Soliman, A.S. Farag, Influence of paraffin wax characteristics on the
formulation of wax-based binders and their debinding from green molded parts
using two comparative techniques, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 209 (9/19/2009)
5981–5989.
[146] S. Supriadi, E.R. Baek, C.J. Choi, B.T. Lee, Binder system for STS 316 nanopowder
feedstocks in micro-metal injection molding, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 187–188
(6/12/2007) 270–273.
[147] J. Rajabi, N. Muhamad, A.B. Sulong, A. Fayyaz, M.R. Raza, The effect of nano-sized
stainless steel powder addition on mechanical and physical properties of
micropowder injection molded part, Mater. Des. 63 (11/2014) 223–232.
[148] M.A. Omar, R. Ibrahim, M.I. Sidik, M. Mustapha, M. Mohamad, Rapid debinding of
316L stainless steel injection moulded component, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 140
(9/22/2003) 397–400.
[149] K. Kameo, K. Nishiyabu, K. Friedrich, S. Tanaka, T. Tanimoto, Sliding wear behavior
of stainless steel parts made by metal injection molding (MIM), Wear 260 (3/10/
2006) 674–686.
[150] C. Quinard, T. Barriere, J.C. Gelin, Development and property identification of 316L
stainless steel feedstock for PIM and μPIM, Powder Technol. 190 (3/5/2009)
123–128.
[151] J. Meng, N.H. Loh, G. Fu, S.B. Tor, B.Y. Tay, Replication and characterization of 316L
stainless steel micro-mixer by micro powder injection molding, J. Alloys Compd.
496 (4/30/2010) 293–299.
[152] L. Liu, N.H. Loh, B.Y. Tay, S.B. Tor, Y. Murakoshi, R. Maeda, Mixing and characterisa-
tion of 316L stainless steel feedstock for micro powder injection molding, Mater.
Charact. 54 (3/2005) 230–238.
[153] F.M. Barreiros, M.T. Vieira, J.M. Castanho, Fine tuning injection feedstock by nano
coating SS powder, Met. Powder Rep. 64 (10/2009) 18–21.
[154] Y. Li, S. Liu, X. Qu, B. Huang, Thermal debinding processing of 316L stainless steel
powder injection molding compacts, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 137 (6/30/2003)
65–69.
[155] C.H. Ji, N.H. Loh, K.A. Khor, S.B. Tor, Sintering study of 316L stainless steel metal in-
jection molding parts using Taguchi method: final density, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 311
(7/31/2001) 74–82.
[156] L. Castro, S. Merino, B. Levenfeld, A. Várez, J.M. Torralba, Mechanical properties and
pitting corrosion behaviour of 316L stainless steel parts obtained by a modified
metal injection moulding process, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 143–144 (12/20/
2003) 397–402.
[157] H. Abolhasani, N. Muhamad, A new starch-based binder for metal injection mold-
ing, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 210 (4/1/2010) 961–968.
[158] P. Wongpanit, S. Khanthsri, S. Puengboonsri, A. Manonukul, Effects of acrylic acid-
grafted HDPE in HDPE-based binder on properties after injection and debinding in
metal injection molding, Mater. Chem. Phys. 147 (9/15/2014) 238–246.
[159] Z.Y. Liu, N.H. Loh, K.A. Khor, S.B. Tor, Sintering activation energy of powder injec-
tion molded 316L stainless steel, Scr. Mater. 44 (4/17/2001) 1131–1137.
[160] C. Quinard, J. Song, T. Barriere, J.C. Gelin, Elaboration of PIM feedstocks with 316L
fine stainless steel powders for the processing of micro-components, Powder
Technol. 208 (3/25/2011) 383–389.
[161] M.R. Raza, F. Ahmad, N. Muhamad, A.B. Sulong, M.A. Omar, M.N. Akhtar, et al., Ef-
fects of solid loading and cooling rate on the mechanical properties and corrosion
1275
behavior of powder injection molded 316 L stainless steel, Powder Technol. 289
(2/2016) 135–142.
[162] H.Ö. Gülsoy, R.M. German, Production of micro-porous austenitic stainless steel by
powder injection molding, Scr. Mater. 58 (2/2008) 295–298.
[163] S. Ahn, S.J. Park, S. Lee, S.V. Atre, R.M. German, Effect of powders and binders on
material properties and molding parameters in iron and stainless steel powder in-
jection molding process, Powder Technol. 193 (7/25/2009) 162–169.
[164] M. Khakbiz, A. Simchi, R. Bagheri, Analysis of the rheological behavior and stability
of 316L stainless steel–TiC powder injection molding feedstock, Mater. Sci. Eng. A
407 (10/25/2005) 105–113.
[165] L. Liu, N.H. Loh, B.Y. Tay, S.B. Tor, Microstructure evolution of 316L stainless steel
micro components prepared by micro powder injection molding, Powder Technol.
206 (1/30/2011) 246–251.
[166] Y. Li, F. Jiang, L. Zhao, B. Huang, Critical thickness in binder removal process for in-
jection molded compacts, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 362 (12/5/2003) 292–299.
[167] L. Liu, N.H. Loh, B.Y. Tay, S.B. Tor, H.Q. Yin, X.H. Qu, Preparation and characterization
of micro components fabricated by micro powder injection molding, Mater.
Charact. 62 (6/2011) 615–620.
[168] M.E. Sotomayor, R. de Kloe, B. Levenfeld, A. Várez, Microstructural study of duplex
stainless steels obtained by powder injection molding, J. Alloys Compd. 589 (3/15/
2014) 314–321.
[169] M.E. Sotomayor, A. Várez, B. Levenfeld, Influence of powder particle size distribu-
tion on rheological properties of 316L powder injection moulding feedstocks, Pow-
der Technol. 200 (6/15/2010) 30–36.
[170] M.R. Raza, F. Ahmad, M. Omar, R. German, Binder removal from powder injection
molded 316L stainless steel, J. Appl. Sci. 11 (2011) 2042–2047.
[171] P. Setasuwon, A. Bunchavimonchet, S. Danchaivijit, The effects of binder compo-
nents in wax/oil systems for metal injection molding, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
196 (1/21/2008) 94–100.
[172] G. Thavanayagam, K.L. Pickering, J.E. Swan, P. Cao, Analysis of rheological behav-
iour of titanium feedstocks formulated with a water-soluble binder system for
powder injection moulding, Powder Technol. 269 (1/2015) 227–232.
[173] H. Guoxin, Z. Lixiang, F. Yunliang, L. Yanhong, Fabrication of high porous NiTi shape
memory alloy by metal injection molding, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 206 (9/12/
2008) 395–399.
[174] H. Zhang, X. He, X. Qu, L. Zhao, Microstructure and mechanical properties of high
Nb containing TiAl alloy parts fabricated by metal injection molding, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 526 (11/25/2009) 31–37.
[175] G.C. Obasi, O.M. Ferri, T. Ebel, R. Bormann, Influence of processing parameters on
mechanical properties of Ti–6Al–4V alloy fabricated by MIM, Mater. Sci. Eng. A
527 (6/25/2010) 3929–3935.
[176] O.M. Ferri, T. Ebel, R. Bormann, High cycle fatigue behaviour of Ti–6Al–4V fabricat-
ed by metal injection moulding technology, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 504 (3/25/2009)
107–113.
[177] D. Zhao, K. Chang, T. Ebel, H. Nie, R. Willumeit, F. Pyczak, Sintering behavior and
mechanical properties of a metal injection molded Ti–Nb binary alloy as biomate-
rial, J. Alloys Compd. 640 (2015) 393–400.
[178] M.D. Hayat, G. Wen, T. Li, P. Cao, Compatibility improvement of Ti-MIM feedstock
using liquid surfactant, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 224 (10/2015) 33–39.
[179] E. Nyberg, M. Miller, K. Simmons, K.S. Weil, Microstructure and mechanical prop-
erties of titanium components fabricated by a new powder injection molding tech-
nique, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 25 (5/2005) 336–342.
[180] J.-h. Wang, Q.-n. Shi, C.-l. Wu, J. Xi, Rheological characteristics of injection molded
titanium alloys powder, Trans. Nonferrous Metals Soc. China 23 (9/2013)
2605–2610.
[181] G. Shibo, Q. Xuanhui, H. Xinbo, Z. Ting, D. Bohua, Powder injection molding of Ti–
6Al–4V alloy, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 173 (4/20/2006) 310–314.
[182] N. Tuncer, M. Bram, A. Laptev, T. Beck, A. Moser, H.P. Buchkremer, Study of metal
injection molding of highly porous titanium by physical modeling and direct ex-
periments, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 214 (7/2014) 1352–1360.
[183] R. Gerling, E. Aust, W. Limberg, M. Pfuff, F.P. Schimansky, Metal injection moulding
of gamma titanium aluminide alloy powder, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 423 (5/15/2006)
262–268.
[184] L.-j. Chen, T. Li, Y.-m. Li, H. He, Y.-h. Hu, Porous titanium implants fabricated by metal
injection molding, Trans. Nonferrous Metals Soc. China 19 (10/2009) 1174–1179.
[185] J.L. Johnson, D.F. Heaney, Metal Injection Molding of Co-28Cr-6Mo, 2005.
[186] P. Muterlle, M. Zendron, M. Perina, R. Bardini, A. Molinari, Microstructure and ten-
sile properties of metal injection molding co–29Cr–6Mo–0.23C alloy, J. Mater. Sci.
45 (2010) 1091–1099.
[187] N. Johari, R. Sauti, N. Abdullah, N. Mohd Zainon, B. Meh, M.N. Abd Jalil, et al., Phys-
ical and mechanical properties of injection molded Co-Cr-Mo alloy powder for or-
thopedic applications, Advanced Materials Research 2016, pp. 80–84.
[188] A. Wahi, N. Muhamad, H. Zakaria, Optimization of 67% powder loading Co-30Cr-
6Mo μMIM part by Taguchi method, J. Teknol. 68 (2014).
[189] A. Wahi, N. Muhamad, A.B. Sulong, Sintering parameter optimization of μPIM Co-30Cr-
6Mo using Taguchi-Grey relational analysis based on multiple responsesInternational
Conference on Mechanical And Industrial Engineering, 2015.
[190] M. Omar, R. Sauti, N. Abdullah, Debinding and sintering characteristic of injection
moulding CoCrMo alloy powder for biomedical applications, Int. J. Emerg. Technol.
Innov. Eng. 1 (2015).
[191] P. Suri, R.P. Koseski, R.M. German, Microstructural evolution of injection molded
gas- and water-atomized 316L stainless steel powder during sintering, Mater.
Sci. Eng. A 402 (8/15/2005) 341–348.
[192] A. Manonukul, N. Muenya, F. Léaux, S. Amaranan, Effects of replacing metal pow-
der with powder space holder on metal foam produced by metal injection mould-
ing, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 210 (2/1/2010) 529–535.
1276 M.F.F.A. Hamidi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 78 (2017) 1263–1276
[193] S.K. Samanta, H. Chattopadhyay, M.M. Godkhindi, Thermo-physical characteriza-
tion of binder and feedstock for single and multiphase flow of PIM 316L feedstock,
J. Mater. Process. Technol. 211 (12/2011) 2114–2122.
[194] M.E. Sotomayor, B. Levenfeld, A. Várez, Powder injection moulding of premixed
ferritic and austenitic stainless steel powders, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 528 (4/15/2011)
3480–3488.
[195] G.J. Shu, K.S. Hwang, Y.T. Pan, Improvements in sintered density and dimensional
stability of powder injection-molded 316L compacts by adjusting the alloying
compositions, Acta Mater. 54 (3/2006) 1335–1342.
[196] J.-P. Choi, H.-G. Lyu, W.-S. Lee, J.-S. Lee, Investigation of the rheological behavior of
316L stainless steel micro-nano powder feedstock for micro powder injection
molding, Powder Technol. 261 (7/2014) 201–209.
[197] P. Imgrund, A. Rota, A. Simchi, Microinjection moulding of 316L/17-4PH and 316L/
Fe powders for fabrication of magnetic–nonmagnetic bimetals, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 200 (5/8/2008) 259–264.
[198] H. Ou, M. Sahli, J.C. Gelin, T. Barrière, Experimental analysis and finite element sim-
ulation of the co-sintering of bi-material components, Powder Technol. 268 (12/
2014) 269–278.
[199] M.R. Raza, F. Ahmad, M.A. Omar, R.M. German, Effects of cooling rate on mechan-
ical properties and corrosion resistance of vacuum sintered powder injection
molded 316L stainless steel, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 212 (1/2012) 164–170.
[200] B.Y. Tay, L. Liu, N.H. Loh, S.B. Tor, Y. Murakoshi, R. Maeda, Characterization of me-
tallic micro rod arrays fabricated by μMIM, Mater. Charact. 57 (8/2006) 80–85.
[201] F. Kafkas, T. Ebel, Metallurgical and mechanical properties of Ti–24Nb–4Zr–8Sn
alloy fabricated by metal injection molding, J. Alloys Compd. 617 (12/25/2014)
359–366.
[202] M. Holm, T. Ebel, M. Dahms, Investigations on Ti–6Al–4V with gadolinium addition
fabricated by metal injection moulding, Mater. Des. 51 (10/2013) 943–948.
[203] O.M. Ferri, T. Ebel, R. Bormann, Influence of surface quality and porosity on fatigue
behaviour of Ti–6Al–4V components processed by MIM, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 527 (3/
25/2010) 1800–1805.
[204] M.R. Raza, A.B. Sulong, N. Muhamad, M.N. Akhtar, J. Rajabi, Effects of binder system
and processing parameters on formability of porous Ti/HA composite through
powder injection molding, Mater. Des. 87 (12/15/2015) 386–392.
[205] M.D. Hayat, G. Wen, M.F. Zulkifli, P. Cao, Effect of PEG molecular weight on rheolog-
ical properties of Ti-MIM feedstocks and water debinding behaviour, Powder
Technol. 270 (Part A) (1/2015) 296–301.
[206] L. Krone, E. Schüller, M. Bram, O. Hamed, H.P. Buchkremer, D. Stöver, Mechanical
behaviour of NiTi parts prepared by powder metallurgical methods, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 378 (7/25/2004) 185–190.
[207] R.K. Enneti, T.S. Shivashankar, S.-J. Park, R.M. German, S.V. Atre, Master debinding
curves for solvent extraction of binders in powder injection molding, Powder
Technol. 228 (9/2012) 14–17.
[208] H.K. Lin, K.S. Hwang, In situ dimensional changes of powder injection-molded
compacts during solvent debinding, Acta Mater. 46 (1998) 4303–4309.
[209] M. Murakami, N. Nomura, H. Doi, Y. Tsutsumi, H. Nakamura, A. Chiba, et al., Micro-
structures of Zr-added Co-Cr-Mo alloy compacts fabricated with a metal injection
molding process and their metal release in 1 mass% lactic acid, Mater. Trans. 51
(2010) 1281–1287.
[210] J. Song, J.C. Gelin, T. Barrière, B. Liu, Experiments and numerical modelling of solid
state sintering for 316L stainless steel components, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 177
(7/3/2006) 352–355.
[211] R.K. Enneti, S.J. Park, R.M. German, S.V. Atre, Review: thermal debinding process in
particulate materials processing, Mater. Manuf. Process. 27 (2012) 103–118.
[212] J.-P. Choi, H.-G. Lyu, W.-S. Lee, J.-S. Lee, Densification and microstructural develop-
ment during sintering of powder injection molded Fe micro–nanopowder, Powder
Technol. 253 (2/2014) 596–601.
[213] S.V. Atre, T.J. Weaver, R.M. German, Injection molding of metals and ceramics, SAE
Technical Paper 0148-7191, 1998.
[214] O. Lame, D. Bellet, M. Di Michiel, D. Bouvard, In situ microtomography investiga-
tion of metal powder compacts during sintering, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys.
Res., Sect. B 200 (2003) 287–294.
[215] M. Aslam, F. Ahmad, P.S.M.B.M. Yusoff, K. Altaf, M.A. Omar, R.M. German, Powder
injection molding of biocompatible stainless steel biodevices, Powder Technol.
295 (7/2016) 84–95.
[216] K. Li, Ceramic Membranes for Separation and Reaction, John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
[217] T.S. Yoon, Y.H. Lee, S.H. Ahn, J.H. Lee, C.S. Lee, Effects of sintering conditions on the
mechanical properties of metal injection molded 316L stainless steel, ISIJ Int. 43
(2003) 119–126.
[218] A. Bose, I. Otsuka, T. Yoshida, H. Toyoshima, Faster sintering and lower costs with
ultra-fine MIM powders, Met. Powder Rep. 63 (5/2008) 25–30.
[219] Z.Y. Liu, N.H. Loh, S.B. Tor, K.A. Khor, Y. Murakoshi, R. Maeda, Binder system for
micropowder injection molding, Mater. Lett. 48 (3/2001) 31–38.
[220] M.-S. Huang, H.-C. Hsu, Effect of backbone polymer on properties of 316L stainless
steel MIM compact, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 209 (8/1/2009) 5527–5535.
[221] B. Berginc, Z. Kampus, B. Sustarsic, The influence of MIM and sintering-process pa-
rameters on the mechanical properties of 316L SS, Mater. Tehnol. 40 (2006) 193.
[222] M. Omar, R. Sauti, N. Abdullah, Debinding and sintering characteristic of injection
moulding CoCrMo alloy powder for biomedical applications, Int. J. Emerg. Technol.
Innov. Eng. 1 (2015) 18–22.
[223] J. Meng, N.H. Loh, B.Y. Tay, G. Fu, S.B. Tor, Tribological behavior of 316L stainless
steel fabricated by micro powder injection molding, Wear 268 (3/9/2010)
1013–1019.
[224] C.V. Vidal, A.I. Muñoz, Effect of thermal treatment and applied potential on the
electrochemical behaviour of CoCrMo biomedical alloy, Electrochim. Acta 54 (2/
15/2009) 1798–1809.