Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Biocompatibility Evolves: Phenomenology to Toxicology to Regeneration

Crawford L., Wyatt M., Bryers J., Ratner B.

Narrative Review on Chronic Wound, published in Adv Healthc Mater (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Adv Healthc Mater (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
33829678
PMCID
PMC8221530
DOI
10.1002/adhm.202002153
Citations
79

Abstract (original English)

The word "biocompatibility," is inconsistent with the observations of healing for so-called biocompatible biomaterials. The vast majority of the millions of medical implants in humans today, presumably "biocompatible," are walled off by a dense, avascular, crosslinked collagen capsule, hardly suggestive of life or compatibility. In contrast, one is now seeing examples of implant biomaterials that lead to a vascularized reconstruction of localized tissue, a biological reaction different from traditional biocompatible materials that generate a foreign body capsule. Both the encapsulated biomaterials and the reconstructive biomaterials qualify as "biocompatible" by present day measurements of biocompatibility. Yet, this new generation of materials would seem to heal "compatibly" with the living organism, where older biomaterials are isolated from the living organism by the dense capsule. This review/perspective article will explore this biocompatibility etymological conundrum by reviewing the history of the concepts around biocompatibility, today's standard methods for assessing biocompatibility, a contemporary view of the foreign body reaction and finally, a compendium of new biomaterials that heal without the foreign body capsule. A new definition of biocompatibility is offered here to address advances in biomaterials design leading to biomaterials that heal into the body in a f

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
HumansForeign-Body ReactionBiocompatible MaterialsProstheses and ImplantsWound Healing

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research