Biocompatibility of implant materials: A review and scanning electron microscopic study

Apple, David J.; Mamalis, Nick; Brady, Steven E.; Loftfield, Katherine; Norman, David I.; Olson, Randall J.

doi:10.1016/s0146-2776(84)80079-8

Cited by 101 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The biocompatibility of these materials has been questioned by several authors: Jongebloed et al (1986), Apple et al (1984), Drews (1983aDrews ( , 1983b) and many others.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Degradation of polypropylene in the human eye: A sem-study

Jongebloed

Worst²

1986

Doc Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A polypropylene surgical suture, which had served as fixation suture for an IOL for a period of 6.5 years, was removed from the eye of a Dutch patient because it had broken at one end and thus formed a potential risk for a corneal touch syndrome. After careful rinsing in 50% ethanol, to remove adhering debris, it was prepared for SEM. A virgin piece of polypropylene material from a surgical package underwent the same preparative procedure. The fixation suture showed cracks perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the suture; part of the surface layer was nearly detached or completely missing; while the diameter of the suture was decreased towards both ends by over 50% in comparison with the original diameter. The exposed subsurface layer showed a fibrillar structure. The degradation phenomena are considered to be caused by the enzymatic action of tissue-fluids. Virgin material did not show any of the phenomena observed on the fixation suture under consideration.

show abstract

“…The biocompatibility of these materials has been questioned by several authors: Jongebloed et al (1986), Apple et al (1984), Drews (1983aDrews ( , 1983b) and many others.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Degradation of polypropylene in the human eye: A sem-study

Jongebloed

Worst²

1986

Doc Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Particles larger than 20µm had very little or no stimulatory effect as measured by H3-thymidine uptake or cytokine release. In general, many articles on bone cement discuss the chemical inertness and biocompatibility of PMMA [69,70].…”

Section: Transport Of Micro Particlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reaction of the body to the same synthetic may be more or less pronounced in different organs. Immunological reactions are considerable higher in the dermis [77] and subdermis than in bone and muscle [70]. Depending on their chemical structure and surface characteristics, most absorbable biological materials and synthetics such as suture materials [78], alginate microspheres [79], polylactic acid, dextran or polymethylacrylate (PMA) particles (Table 2) initiate a temporary foreign body reaction which may remain untreated up to 12 months; whereas granulomas after permanent injectables like PMMA can last up to 5 years [80,81].…”

Section: Foreign Body Granulomamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Metacrill 50µm 20-80µm Carboxy-methylcellulose [3] Carbon-coated zirkoniumoxide spheres Durasphere 200µm 212-500m beta-glucan [60] Hydroxy-ethylmethyl-acrylate HEMA Dermalive 55µm 10-130µm hyaluronic acid HA [70] Absorbables Calcium-apatite Radiesse, Coaptite 100µm 75-125mm Methyl-cellulose [95] Polylactic acid PLLA Sculptra 46µm 10-80µm Carboxy-cellulose CMC [95] Dextran Deflux 100µm 80-120µm hyaluronic acid [72] Hyaluronic acid HA gel balls Restylane, Juvederm, etc. different products 10-100µm hyaluronic acid [95] Polycapro-lactone PCL Ellanse´ S, M, and L 40µm 25-50µm Carboxy-methylcellulose…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biocompatibility of Injectable Microspheres

Lemperle¹

2018

BJSTR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Drews [2], Apple et al [1] and Jongebloed et al [5,7] have questioned the biocompatability of these materials when used in the human eye.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stainless steel as suturing material in human- and rabbit corneas: A SEM-study

Jongebloed

Rijneveld²,

Cuperus

et al. 1988

Doc Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stainless steel wire, dia. 50 microns, was used as suturing material in rabbit corneas for periods of 1.5, 3 and 7 months respectively, in order to test its inertness and acceptance by the corneal tissue. One clinical case of stainless steel wire used for fixation of an I.O.L.-implantation, after a 5-year residence in the eye, is reported as well. After 1.5 months' residence, the suture margins were well covered with tissue containing irregularly shaped endothelial cells, some fibroblastic-type cells and various kinds of collagenous fibre material. The buckled surface was partly covered with a very thin membrane of collagenous material, strands of collagenous fibres and a few fibroblastic-type cells. After 3 months' residence the buckle was almost completely covered with an endothelial cell layer. The individual cells had a somewhat irregular hexagonal shape. At a few local sites closure was still progressing, with filopodia and other collagenous matter generated by neighbouring cells on top of previously deposited Descemet's membrane. After 7 months' residence, the buckle was completely covered with normal endothelium. The fixation suture in the human case showed perfect acceptance by the corneal tissue.

show abstract

Biocompatibility of implant materials: A review and scanning electron microscopic study

Cited by 101 publications

References 36 publications

Degradation of polypropylene in the human eye: A sem-study

Degradation of polypropylene in the human eye: A sem-study

Biocompatibility of Injectable Microspheres

Stainless steel as suturing material in human- and rabbit corneas: A SEM-study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About