The Concept and Assessment of Biocompatibility

Abstract This chapter clarifies some of the issues in biocompatibility, and also raises questions that will likely impact the field in the coming years. In contrast to empirical approaches and practical considerations focused solely about the safety of implanted devices (for example, toxicology, the state of the art today), modern cell and molecular biology ideas may give us a useful “theory of biocompatibility” with quantifiable parameters, testable hypotheses, and validated engineering rules.

[1]  S. Badylak,et al.  Macrophage phenotype as a determinant of biologic scaffold remodeling. , 2008, Tissue engineering. Part A.

[2]  Y. Cossart,et al.  Detection of Subclinical Infection in Significant Breast Implant Capsules , 2003, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[3]  David F. Williams.  The role of short synthetic adhesion peptides in regenerative medicine; the debate. , 2011, Biomaterials.

[4]  L. P. Yasenchak,et al.  Tissue response to implanted polymers: the significance of sample shape. , 1976, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[5]  Dimitrije Stamenović,et al.  Tensegrity-guided self assembly: from molecules to living cells , 2009 .

[6]  G. W. Hastings,et al.  Book reviewDefinitions in Biomaterials: Progress in Biomedical Engineering 4, Editor: D.F. Williams. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1987, pp viii + 72, US $63.50 , 1989 .

[7]  J. Hubbell,et al.  Synthetic biomaterials as instructive extracellular microenvironments for morphogenesis in tissue engineering , 2005, Nature Biotechnology.

[8]  J. Olerud,et al.  Epidermal and dermal integration into sphere-templated porous poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) implants in mice. , 2010, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[9]  Andrés J. García,et al.  Biomolecular surface coating to enhance orthopaedic tissue healing and integration. , 2007, Biomaterials.

[10]  R. C. Johnson,et al.  Neovascularization of synthetic membranes directed by membrane microarchitecture. , 1995, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[11]  Buddy D. Ratner,et al.  Biomaterials with tightly controlled pore size that promote vascular in-growth , 2004 .

[12]  A. Weinstein,et al.  An evaluation of bone growth into porous high density polyethylene. , 1976, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[13]  David F. Williams.  On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. , 2008, Biomaterials.

[14]  Lauran R. Madden,et al.  Proangiogenic scaffolds as functional templates for cardiac tissue engineering , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  J. Anderson,et al.  Cytokine and growth factor production by monocytes/macrophages on protein preadsorbed polymers. , 1992, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[16]  A. Mantovani.  Macrophage diversity and polarization: in vivo veritas , 2006 .

[17]  R. Darouiche,et al.  Candida Infections of Medical Devices , 2004, Clinical Microbiology Reviews.

[18]  K. Brand,et al.  Tumorigenesis by Millipore filters in mice: histology and ultrastructure of tissue reactions as related to pore size. , 1973, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[19]  Stephen F Badylak,et al.  The extracellular matrix as a biologic scaffold material. , 2007, Biomaterials.