Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Williams DF. Definitions in Biomaterials, Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1987.
ISO. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices – Part 12: Sample Preparation and Reference Materials, 2007.
Campisi J. Cancer, aging and cellular senescence. In Vivo, 2000, 14(1): 183–188.
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.
Freshney RI. Culture of Animal Cells: A Manual of Basic Techniques, 4th edn, Wiley & Sons: New York, 2000.
ISO. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices – Part 5: Tests for In Vitro Cytotoxicity, 1999.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gillies RJ, Didier N, and Denton M. Determination of cell number in monolayer cultures. Anal Biochem, 1986, 159(1): 109–113.
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.
Assuncao Guimaraes C and Linden R. Programmed cell deaths. Apoptosis and alternative deathstyles. Eur J Biochem, 2004, 271(9): 1638–1650.
ISO. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices – Part 4: Selection of Tests for Interactions with Blood, 2002.
Garner LA. Contact dermatitis to metals. Dermatol Ther, 2004, 17(4): 321–327.
Basketter D, et al. The chemistry of contact allergy: Why is a molecule allergenic? Contact Dermatitis, 1995, 32(2): 65–73.
Kanerva L. Cross-reactions of multifunctional methacrylates and acrylates. Acta Odontol Scand, 2001, 59(5): 320–329.
Dannaker CJ. Allergic sensitization to a non-bisphenol A epoxy of the cycloaliphatic class. J Occup Med, 1988, 30(8): 641–643.
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.
Oleffe J and Wilmet J. Generalized eczema and an osteosynthesis screw. Arch Belg Dermatol Syphiligr, 1972, 28(3): 275–278.
Oleffe J and Wilmet J. Generalized dermatitis from an osteosynthesis screw. Contact Dermatitis, 1980, 6(5): 365.
Budinger L and Hertl M. Immunologic mechanisms in hypersensitivity reactions to metal ions: An overview. Allergy, 2000, 55(2): 108–115.
ISO. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices – Part 10: Tests for Irradiation and Delayed Type Hypersensitivity, 2002.
Buehler EV. Delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Arch Dermatol, 1965, 91: 171–177.
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.
Eloy R, et al. Current and future issues in sensitisation testing. Med Device Technol, 2001, 12(7): 12–15.
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.
Moustacchi E. DNA damage and repair: Consequences on dose-responses. Mutat Res, 2000, 464(1): 35–40.
Ames BN. Identifying environmental chemicals causing mutations and cancer. Science, 1979, 204(4393): 587–593.
Maron DM and Ames BN. Revised methods for the Salmonella mutagenicity test. Mutat Res, 1983, 113(3–4): 173–215.
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.
Collins AR. The comet assay for DNA damage and repair: Principles, applications, and limitations. Mol Biotechnol, 2004, 26(3): 249–261.
Clive D, et al. A mutational assay system using the thymidine kinase locus in mouse lymphoma cells. Mutat Res, 1972, 16(7): 77–87.
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.
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.
Dillehay LE, Jacobson-Kram D, and Williams JR. DNA topoisomerases and models of sister-chromatid exchange. Mutat Res, 1989, 215(1): 15–23.
von Ledebur M and Schmid W. The micronucleus test. Methodological aspects. Mutat Res, 1973, 19(1): 109–117.
ISO. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices – Part 2: Animal Welfare Requirements, 2006.
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.
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.
Hoffmann S, et al. International validation of novel pyrogen tests based on human monocytoid cells. J Immunol Methods, 2005, 298(1–2): 161–173.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Peters, K., Unger, R.E., Kirkpatrick, C.J. (2009). Biocompatibility Testing. In: Narayan, R. (eds) Biomedical Materials. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-84872-3_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-84872-3_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-84871-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-84872-3
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)