Skip to main content

Inflammation, Carcinogenicity and Hypersensitivity

  • Chapter
Book cover Biomedical Materials

Abstract

Biomaterials, be they metal or polymer, ceramic or glass or some combination of all of these, when placed inside the human body are not normally rejected. The term rejection in this context generally refers to an adverse immunological response analogous to that seen when patients reject an organ transplant. For the most part, non-biological materials when placed in contact with human tissue, either upon or beneath the skin are well tolerated and may become “accepted” by the body. In these circumstances, if the implant is then able to effectively carry out its function for the required period of time, it may be described as expressing biocompatibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Pawlowski KJ. Host reactions, in Bowlin GL, ed. Encyclopedia of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, Marcel Dekker: New York, 2004, pp. 770–778.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson JM. Inflammation, wound healing and the foreign body response, in Ratner BD, Hoffman AS, Schoen FJ, and Lemons JE, eds. Biomaterials Science: An Introduction to Materials in Medicine, 2nd edn, Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2004, pp. 296–303.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Williams DF. The Williams Dictionary of Biomaterials, University of Liverpool Press: Liverpool, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hunt JA. Foreign body response, in Bowlin GL, ed. Encyclopedia of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, Marcel Dekker: New York, 2004, pp. 641–648.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kopp R, Mottaghy K, and Kirschfink M. Mechanism of complement activation during extracorporeal blood-biomaterial interaction: effects of heparin coated and uncoated surfaces. ASAIO, 2002, 48: 598–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Costerton B, Cook G, Shirtliff M, Stoodley P, and Pasmore M. Biofilms, biomaterials and device-related infections, in Ratner BD, Hoffman AS, Schoen FJ, and Lemons JE, eds. Biomaterials Science: An Introduction to Materials in Medicine, 2nd edn, Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2004, pp. 345–354.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Roberts WE. Bone tissue interface. J Dent Educ, 1988, 52: 804–809.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hanson SR. Blood-material interactions, in Bowlin GL, ed. Encyclopedia of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, Marcel Dekker: New York, 2004, pp. 144–154.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Williams DF, ed. Definitions in biomaterials, in Progress in Biomedical Engineering, vol. 4, Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1987, p. 54.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Williams DF. Biocompatibility, an overview, in Williams DF, ed. Concise Encyclopedia of Medical and Dental Materials, Pergammon Press: New York, 1990, pp. 51–59.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chauval-Lebret DJ, Auroy P, Tricot-Doleux S, and Bonnaure-Mallet M. Evaluation of the SCGE assay to assess the genotoxicity of biomaterials. Biomaterials, 2001, 22: 1795–1807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. ISO 10993. The Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices, Part 4: Selection of Tests for Interactions with Blood, International Standard Organization 2002, pp. 10993–10994.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Renvoize C, Biola A, Pallardy M, and Breard J. Apoptosis; identification of dying cells. Cell Biol Toxicol, 1998, 14: 111–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jones B and Stacey G. Safety considerations for in vitro toxicology testing. Cell Biol Toxicol, 2001, 17: 247–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. ISO 10993. The Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices, Part 5: Tests for Toxicity; In Vitro Methods, International Standard Organization 2002, pp. 10993–10995.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pizzoferatto A, Ciapetti G, Stea S, Cenni E, Arciola CR, Grachi D, and Savarino L. Cell culture methods for testing biocompatibility. Clin Mater, 1994, 15: 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kirkpatrick CJ, Bittinger F, Wagner M, Kohler H, van Kooten TG, Klein CL, and Otto M. Current trends in biocompatibility testing. Proc Inst Mech Eng, 1998, 212: 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Doherty PJ. Cell culture assays, in Bowlin GL, ed. Encyclopedia of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, Marcel Dekker: New York, 2004, pp. 292–298.

    Google Scholar 

  19. BS EN ISO 10993-3. Biological evaluation of medical devices, Part 3: Tests for genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Doherty .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Doherty, P. (2009). Inflammation, Carcinogenicity and Hypersensitivity. In: Narayan, R. (eds) Biomedical Materials. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-84872-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-84872-3_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-84871-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-84872-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics