• Vasif Hasirci
  • Nesrin Hasirci


One of the first definitions of a biomaterial was that of the Clemson University Advisory Board for Biomaterials [1] which was “a systemically and pharmacologically inert substance designed for implantation within or incorporation with living systems.” Biocompatibility was defined by Williams (2008) as “the ability of a material to perform with an appropriate host response in a specific application” [2]. According to ASTM on the other hand, it is defined as a “comparison of the tissue response produced through the close association of the implanted candidate material to its implant site within the host animal to that tissue response recognized and established as suitable with control materials.” Another definition of biocompatibility provided was “The condition of being compatible with living tissue by virtue of a lack of toxicity or ability to cause immunological rejection” [3].


  1. 1.
    Clemson University Advisory Board for Biomaterials, 1976Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Williams DF (2008) On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials 29(20):2,941–2,953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms (2003) The McGraw-Hill Companies, IncGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Innovation and stagnation, challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products, FDA March 2004Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anderson JM (2001) Biological responses to materials. Annu Rev Mater Res 31:81–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO 10993-1Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Food and Drug Administration Agency (2016) Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, “Biological evaluation of medical devices – Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process”. Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Rockville, MD, pp 48–49Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD, van Dongen IM, Hirsch A, Packer EJ et al (2017) Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 69(3):278–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fortier A, Gullapalli V, Mirshams RA (2014) Review of biomechanical studies of arteries and their effect on stent performance. IJC Heart Vessels 4:12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Komiyama N, Chronos NA, Uren NG, Moore MP, Kelly AB, Harker LA et al (1999) The progression of thrombus in an ex-vivo shunt model evaluated by intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol 25(4):561–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    The rules governing medicinal products in the european union. Volume 10 – Guidance documents applying to clinical trials, European Commission health and consumers directorate-general, health products and systems, medicinal products – Quality, safety and efficacy, Brussels, 11/04/2012, sanco.ddg1.d.6(2012)501417Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Commission DG Health and Consumer, Directorate B, Unit B2 “Cosmetics and Medical Devices” Medical Devices: Guidance document- Classification of Medical Devices, MEDDEV 2. 4/1 Rev. 9 June 2010Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 Concerning Medical Devices, Official Journal L 169, 12/07/1993 P. 0001–0043Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaplan AV, Baim DS, Smith JJ, Feigal DA, Simons M, Jefferys D, Fogarty TJ, Kuntz RE, Leon MB (2004) Medical device development: from prototype to regulatory approval. Circulation 109:3068–3072CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vasif Hasirci
    • 1
  • Nesrin Hasirci
    • 2
  1. 1.BIOMATEN Center of Excellence in Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering, and Department of Biological SciencesMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.BIOMATEN Center of Excellence in Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering, and Department of ChemistryMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations