1978
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820120207
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Biocompatibility testing of polymers: In vivo implantation studies

Abstract: An in vivo method is described for screening polymeric materials for biocompatibility. The test is based on grading acute and subacute tissue reactions at 7 and 28 days, respectively, following implantation in rats. The methods is reproducible and reliable. It is designed to provide uniform test criteria for biocompatibility assessment in the early phases of the development of surgical implant materials.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
21
0
4

Year Published

1990
1990
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 83 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
2
21
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Local inflammatory reaction assessed after implanting polymers can be divided into three main phases: acute (0-7 days), subacute (7-28 days), and chronic (>28 days). 46 What is seen in general are polymorphonuclear leukocytes manifesting in early inflammation, attracted by chemokines released by damaged cells. 48 In the subacute phase, monocytes, macrophages, and fibroblasts predominate, leading to the formation of a dense fibrous tissue, mainly consisting of fibroblasts and collagen matrix.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Local inflammatory reaction assessed after implanting polymers can be divided into three main phases: acute (0-7 days), subacute (7-28 days), and chronic (>28 days). 46 What is seen in general are polymorphonuclear leukocytes manifesting in early inflammation, attracted by chemokines released by damaged cells. 48 In the subacute phase, monocytes, macrophages, and fibroblasts predominate, leading to the formation of a dense fibrous tissue, mainly consisting of fibroblasts and collagen matrix.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cell counts 44 and adapted from earlier studies. [45][46][47] Briefly, capsular thickness, cellular response and cell type repartitions were evaluated, and scores from 0 to 5þ were attributed according to the criteria given in Table I. An overall rating was obtained using weighting factors (53 for the capsular thickness, 33 for the cellular response observed in the capsule, 53 for the neutrophils, 23 for the FBGCs, 13 for the lymphocytes, 13 for macrophages, and 13 for the fibroblasts).…”
Section: Histological Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…5,7,10 While this approach works well for the evaluation of nondegradable materials, with degradable materials having different degradation rates, the use of a preselected time scale can be problematic. [11][12][13] When evaluating degradable polymers with different degradation rates, comparative studies with preset time points can overlook changes in the tissue response that occur due to specific events associated with the degradation and/or resorption of the implant. For example, in several studies, the onset of mass loss from PLLA implants has been associated with the onset of bone resorption.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This observation is in conjugation with previous reports on implant matrices where the hydrophilicity of polymer was directly correlated with increased implant erosion and drug diffusion. 38 CIP release from all implant formulations was monitered over 90 days time period. With PR, the percent drug release was almost similar with a difference of about 5%, 8%, and 10% at the end of 30, 60, and 90 days respectively between 20% and 40% CIP implants.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%