Biomaterials for Implants

  • Vinod Kumar Khanna


Essential to the success of an implantable electronic device is the choice of its constructional biomaterial. This biomaterial must neither corrode in the body nor elicit any adverse response from it. Due to immune response from the host body, tissue inflammation occurs along with fibrous encapsulation of the implant. Functionality of the implant is thereby inhibited. Surface modification techniques have been devised for improving the biocompatibility of the implant. Besides the age-old “stainless steel,” implants generally use metals like platinum, iridium, titanium, and tantalum. Bioceramic materials like aluminum oxide are also used. Polymeric materials, e.g., polyimide (PI), polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), poly(p-xylylene) (parylene), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), liquid crystal polymer (LCP), etc., have appeared as substitutions for metallic and ceramic biomaterials to serve as the draping covers of medical devices to be lodged inside the human body.


Biomaterials Biocompatibility Foreign body reaction Fibrosis Metals Bioceramics Polymers 


  1. 1.
    Tathe A, Ghodke M, Nikalje AP (2010) A brief review: biomaterials and their application. Int J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci 2(4):19–23Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang X (2013) Overview on biocompatibilities of implantable biomaterials (Chapter 5). In: Pignatello R (ed) Advances in biomaterials science and biomedical applications. InTech, pp 111–155.
  3. 3.
    Williams DF (2008) On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials 29(20):2941–2953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Williams DF (2009) On the nature of biomaterials. Biomaterials 30:5897–5909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elshahawy W (2011). Chapter 15: Biocompatibility, In: Sikalidis C (ed) Advances in ceramics—electric and magnetic ceramics, bioceramics, ceramics and environment. InTech, pp 359–378Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anderson JM (2001) Biological responses to materials. Annu Rev Mater Res 31:81–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anderson JM, Rodriguez A, Chang DT (2008) Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol 20(2):86–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hermawan H, Ramdan D, Djuansjah JRP (2011) Metals for biomedical applications. In: Fazel R (ed) Biomedical engineering—from theory to applications. InTech, pp 411–430Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sun Y, Haruman E (2008) Influence of processing conditions on structural characteristics of hybrid plasma surface alloyed austenitic stainless steel. Surf Coat Technol 202(17):4069–4075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Serro AP, Saramago B (2003) Influence of sterilization on the mineralization of Ti implants induced by incubation in various biological model fluids. Biomaterials 24(26):4749–4760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xin Y, Liu C, Zhang X et al (2007) Corrosion behavior of biomedical AZ91 magnesium alloy in simulated body fluids. J Mater Res 22(7):2004–2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schinhammer M, Hänzi AC, Löffler JF et al (2010) Design strategy for biodegradable Fe-based alloys for medical applications. Acta Biomater 6(5):1705–1713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sarkar R, Banerjee G (2010) Ceramic based bio-medical implants. Int Cer Rev 59(2):98–102Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elshahawy W, Watanabe I, Koike M (2009) Elemental ion release from four different fixed prosthodontic materials. Dent Mater 25(8):976–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Qin Y, Howlader MMR, Deen MJ et al (2014) Polymer integration for packaging of implantable sensors. Sens Actuators B 202:758–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stieglitz T, Schuettler M, Meyer J-U (2000) Micromachined, polyimide-based devices for flexible neural interfaces. Biomed Microdevices 2:283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jiang J-S, Chiou B-S (2001) The effect of polyimide passivation on the electromigration of Cu multilayer interconnections. J Mater Sci 12:655–659Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scheirs J, Burks S, Locaspi A (1995) Development in fluoropolymer coatings. Trends Polym Sci 3:74–82Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mark JE (2009) Polymer data handbook. Oxford University Press, New York, 1264 pGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kurtz SM, Devine JN (2007) PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials 28:4845–4869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rivard C-H, Rhalmi S, Coillard C (2002) In vivo biocompatibility testing of peek polymer for a spinal implant system: a study in rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res 62:488–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lötters JC, Olthuis W, Veltink PH et al (1997) The mechanical properties of the rubber elastic polymer polydimethylsiloxane for sensor applications. J Micromech Microeng 7:145–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Armani D, Liu C, Aluru N (1999) Re-configurable fluid circuits by PDMS elastomer micromachining, In: MEMS’99. Twelfth IEEE international conference on micro electro mechanical systems, Orlando, pp 222–227Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thompson DC, Tantot O, Jallageas H et al (2004) Characterization of liquid crystal polymer (LCP) material and transmission lines on LCP substrates from 30 to 110 GHz. IEEE Trans Microwave Theory Tech 52:1343–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vinod Kumar Khanna
    • 1
  1. 1.CSIR-Central Electronics Engineering Research InstitutePilaniIndia

Personalised recommendations