Biocompatibility Testing

  • Kirsten Peters
  • Ronald E. Unger
  • C. James Kirkpatrick


The insertion of a foreign material into the body induces a cascade of events, basically at the interface between the implanted material and the tissue, which results in the recognition of the material as foreign matter. The degree of this physiological response depends on the location of implantation and the composition and mechanical properties of the material. Thus, the body’s response to an implanted material is affected by a number of different factors. To evaluate and reduce the risk for unexpected or unwanted side effects, biocompatibility testing is used to examine new biomaterials and biomedical devices destined for implantation. The biological evaluation of the material’s safety is a complex task since it requires knowledge in the disciplines of medicine, biology, pathology, engineering and materials science.


Medical Device Sister Chromatid Exchange Crystal Violet Staining Permanent Cell Line Biocompatibility Testing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Williams DF. Definitions in Biomaterials, Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices – Part 12: Sample Preparation and Reference Materials, 2007.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Campisi J. Cancer, aging and cellular senescence. In Vivo, 2000, 14(1): 183–188.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pedrinaci S, et al. Protein kinase C-mediated regulation of the expression of CD14 and CD11/CD18 in U937 cells. Int J Cancer, 1990, 45(2): 294–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freshney RI. Culture of Animal Cells: A Manual of Basic Techniques, 4th edn, Wiley & Sons: New York, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices – Part 5: Tests for In Vitro Cytotoxicity, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peters K, et al. Cell type-specific aspects in biocompatibility testing: The intercellular contact in vitro as an indicator for endothelial cell compatibility. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2008, 19(4): 1637–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Decker T and Lohmann-Matthes ML. A quick and simple method for the quantitation of lactate dehydrogenase release in measurements of cellular cytotoxicity and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) activity. J Immunol Methods, 1988, 115(1): 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cory AH, et al. Use of an aqueous soluble tetrazolium/formazan assay for cell growth assays in culture. Cancer Commun, 1991, 3(7): 207–212.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Denizot F and Lang R. Rapid colorimetric assay for cell growth and survival. Modifications to the tetrazolium dye procedure giving improved sensitivity and reliability. J Immunol Methods, 1986, 89(2): 271–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gillies RJ, Didier N, and Denton M. Determination of cell number in monolayer cultures. Anal Biochem, 1986, 159(1): 109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klein CL, et al. A new quantitative test method for cell proliferation based on detection of the Ki-67 protein. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2000, 11(2): 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Assuncao Guimaraes C and Linden R. Programmed cell deaths. Apoptosis and alternative deathstyles. Eur J Biochem, 2004, 271(9): 1638–1650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices – Part 4: Selection of Tests for Interactions with Blood, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garner LA. Contact dermatitis to metals. Dermatol Ther, 2004, 17(4): 321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Basketter D, et al. The chemistry of contact allergy: Why is a molecule allergenic? Contact Dermatitis, 1995, 32(2): 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kanerva L. Cross-reactions of multifunctional methacrylates and acrylates. Acta Odontol Scand, 2001, 59(5): 320–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dannaker CJ. Allergic sensitization to a non-bisphenol A epoxy of the cycloaliphatic class. J Occup Med, 1988, 30(8): 641–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shanklin DR and Smalley DL. The immunopathology of siliconosis. History, clinical presentation, and relation to silicosis and the chemistry of silicon and silicone. Immunol Res, 1998, 18(3): 125–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oleffe J and Wilmet J. Generalized eczema and an osteosynthesis screw. Arch Belg Dermatol Syphiligr, 1972, 28(3): 275–278.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oleffe J and Wilmet J. Generalized dermatitis from an osteosynthesis screw. Contact Dermatitis, 1980, 6(5): 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Budinger L and Hertl M. Immunologic mechanisms in hypersensitivity reactions to metal ions: An overview. Allergy, 2000, 55(2): 108–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    ISO. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices – Part 10: Tests for Irradiation and Delayed Type Hypersensitivity, 2002.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Buehler EV. Delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Arch Dermatol, 1965, 91: 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Magnusson B and Kligman AM. The identification of contact allergens by animal assay. The guinea pig maximization test. J Invest Dermatol, 1969, 52(3): 268–276.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eloy R, et al. Current and future issues in sensitisation testing. Med Device Technol, 2001, 12(7): 12–15.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kimber I and Weisenberger C. A murine local lymph node assay for the identification of contact allergens. Assay development and results of an initial validation study. Arch Toxicol, 1989, 63(4): 274–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moustacchi E. DNA damage and repair: Consequences on dose-responses. Mutat Res, 2000, 464(1): 35–40.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ames BN. Identifying environmental chemicals causing mutations and cancer. Science, 1979, 204(4393): 587–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maron DM and Ames BN. Revised methods for the Salmonella mutagenicity test. Mutat Res, 1983, 113(3–4): 173–215.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Williams GM. Carcinogen-induced DNA repair in primary rat liver cell cultures; a possible screen for chemical carcinogens. Cancer Lett, 1976, 1(4): 231–235.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Collins AR. The comet assay for DNA damage and repair: Principles, applications, and limitations. Mol Biotechnol, 2004, 26(3): 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Clive D, et al. A mutational assay system using the thymidine kinase locus in mouse lymphoma cells. Mutat Res, 1972, 16(7): 77–87.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Applegate ML, et al. Molecular dissection of mutations at the heterozygous thymidine kinase locus in mouse lymphoma cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1990, 87(1): 51–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kato H and Shimada H. Sister chromatid exchanges induced by mitomycin C: A new method of detecting DNA damage at chromosomal level. Mutat Res, 1975, 28(3): 459–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dillehay LE, Jacobson-Kram D, and Williams JR. DNA topoisomerases and models of sister-chromatid exchange. Mutat Res, 1989, 215(1): 15–23.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    von Ledebur M and Schmid W. The micronucleus test. Methodological aspects. Mutat Res, 1973, 19(1): 109–117.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    ISO. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices – Part 2: Animal Welfare Requirements, 2006.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Monteiro-Riviere NA, et al. Comparison of an in vitro skin model to normal human skin for dermatological research. Microsc Res Tech, 1997, 37(3): 172–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hartung T, et al. Novel pyrogen tests based on the human fever reaction. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 43. European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. Altern Lab Anim, 2001, 29(2): 99–123.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hoffmann S, et al. International validation of novel pyrogen tests based on human monocytoid cells. J Immunol Methods, 2005, 298(1–2): 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Peters K, et al. Software supported quantification of angiogenesis in an in vitro culture system. Examples of applications in studies of basic research, biocompatibility and drug discovery, in Zubar RV, ed. Trends in Angiogenesis Research, Nova Science Publishers Inc.: New York, 2005, pp. 103–123.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirsten Peters
    • 1
  • Ronald E. Unger
    • 2
  • C. James Kirkpatrick
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Cell Biology/Junior Research GroupBiomedical Research Center (BMFZ)RostockGermany
  2. 2.Johannes Gutenberg University, Institute of Pathology, REPAIR LabMainzGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Pathology, Johannes Gutenberg UniversityMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations