Biocompatibility assessment of biomaterials used in orthopedic devices: An overview (Review)

Huzum,Bogdan; Puha,Bogdan; Necoara,Riana Maria; Gheorghevici,Stefan; Puha,Gabriela; Filip,Alexandru; Sirbu,Paul Dan; Alexa,Ovidiu

doi:10.3892/etm.2021.10750

Biocompatibility assessment of biomaterials used in orthopedic devices: An overview (Review)

Authors:
- Bogdan Huzum
- Bogdan Puha
- Riana Maria Necoara
- Stefan Gheorghevici
- Gabriela Puha
- Alexandru Filip
- Paul Dan Sirbu
- Ovidiu Alexa
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, ‘Grigore T. Popa’ University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Iasi, 700115 Iasi, Romania, Orthopaedic and Traumatology Clinic, ‘Sf. Spiridon’ Clinical Emergency Hospital, 700111 Iasi, Romania, Radiology‑Imaging Clinic, ‘Sf. Spiridon’ Clinical Emergency Hospital, 700111 Iasi, Romania, Department of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, ‘Grigore T. Popa’ University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Iasi, 700115 Iasi, Romania
Published online on: September 17, 2021 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2021.10750
Article Number: 1315
Copyright: © Huzum et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Biocompatibility is one of the mandatory requirements for the clinical use of biomaterials in orthopedics. It refers to the ability of a biomaterial to perform its function without eliciting toxic or injurious effects on biological systems but producing an appropriate host response in a specific case. Today, the biocompatibility concept includes not only bio‑inertia, but also biofunctionality and biostability. High biocompatibility and functional properties are highly desirable for new biomaterials. The chemical, mechanical, structural properties of biomaterials, their interaction with biological environment or even the methodology of assessment can influence the biocompatibility. The biological evaluation of biomaterials includes a broad spectrum of in vitro and in vivo tests related to the cytocompatibility, genotoxicity, sensitization, irritation, acute and chronic toxicity, hemocompatibility, reproductive and developmental toxicitity, carcinogenicity, implantation and degradation as specified in different international standards. A brief review of the main assays used in the biocompatibility testing of orthopedic biomaterials is presented. In addition, their main biocompatibility issues are overviewed.

View Figures

View References

1	Cieza A, Causey K, Kamenov K, Hanson SW, Chatterji S and Vos T: Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the global burden of disease study 2019: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet. 396:2006–2017. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
2	GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet. 396:1204–1222. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
3	Assad M and Jackson N: Biocompatibility evaluation of orthopedic biomaterials and medical devices: A review of safety and efficacy models. In: Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering. Vol 2. 1st edition. Narayan RJ (ed). Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp281-309, 2019.
4	Bruinink A and Luginbuehl R: Evaluation of biocompatibility using in vitro methods: Interpretation and limitations. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 126:117–152. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
5	Helmus MN, Gibbons DF and Cebon D: Biocompatibility: Meeting a key functional requirement of next-generation medical devices. Toxicol Pathol. 36:70–80. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
6	Bergmann CP and Stumpf A: Biomaterials. In: Dental ceramics. Topics in mining, metallurgy and materials engineering. Bergmann CP (ed) Springer, Heidelberg, pp9-15, 2013.
7	Rodríguez-González ÁF: Biomaterials in Orthopaedic Surgery. ASM International, pp1-10, 2009.
8	Shekhwat D, Singh A, Banerjee MK, Singh T and Patnaik A: Bioceramics composites for orthopaedic applications: A comprehensive review of mechanical, biological, and microstructural properties. Ceram Int. 47:3013–3030. 2021.
9	Kiradzhiyaska DD and Mantcheva RD: Overview of biocompatible materials and their use in medicine. Folia Med (Plovdiv). 61:34–40. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
10	Gobbi SJ, Gobbi JV and Rocha Y: Requirements for selection/development of a biomaterial. Biomed J Sci Tech Res. 14:10674–10679. 2019.
11	Navarro M, Michiardi A, Castaño O and Planell JA: Biomaterials in orthopaedics. J R Soc Interface. 5:1137–1158. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
12	Vandana U, Nancy D, Sabareeswaran A, Remya NS, Rajendran N and Mohanan PV: Biocompatibility of strontium incorporated ceramic coated titanium oxide implant indented for orthopaedic applications. Mater Sci Eng B. 264(114954)2021.
13	Bommala VK, Krishna MG and Rao CT: Magnesium matrix composites for biomedical applications: A review. J Magnes Alloy. 7:72–79. 2019.
14	Kumar K, Das A and Prasad SB: Recent developments in biodegradable magnesium matrix composites for orthopaedic applications: A review based on biodegradability, mechanical and biocompatibility perspective. Mater Today Proc. 44:2038–2042. 2021.
15	Nuss KMR and von Rechenberg B: Biocompatibility issues with modern implants in bone-a review for clinical orthopedics. Open Orthop J. 2:66–78. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
16	Victor SP and Muthu J: Polymer ceramic composite materials for orthopedic applications-relevance and need for mechanical match and bone regeneration. J Mechatron. 2:1–10. 2014.
17	Aherwar A, Singh AK and Patnaik A: Current and future biocompatibility aspects of biomaterials for hip prosthesis. AIMS Bioeng. 3:23–43. 2016.
18	Kattimani VS, Kondaka S and Lingameneni KP: Hydroxyapatite-past, present, and future in bone regeration. Bone Tissue Regen Insights: Sep 11, 2016 (Epub ahead of print).
19	Rufino Senra M and Marques FV: Synthetic polymeric materials for bone replacement. J Compos Sci. 4(191)2020.
20	Liu B and Lun DX: Current application of β-tricalcium phosphate composites in orthopaedics. Orthop Surg. 4:139–144. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
21	Samavedi S, Poindexter LK, Van Dyke M and Goldstein AS: Synthetic biomaterials for regenerative medicine applications. In: Regenerative Medicine Applications in Organ Transplantation. Orlando G, Lerut J, Soker S and Stratta RJ (eds). Academic Press, Boston, pp81-99, 2014.
22	Webb JC and Spencer RF: The role of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement in modern orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 89:851–857. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
23	Cipurković A, Horozić E, Đonlagić N, Marić S, Saletović M and Ademović Z: Biodegradable polymers: Production, properties and application in medicine scientific review paper. Technol Acta. 11:25–35. 2018.
24	Quinn J, McFadden R, Chan CW and Carson L: Titanium for orthopedic applications: An overview of surface modification to improve biocompatibility and prevent bacterial biofilm formation. iScience. 28(10174)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
25	Rahmati M, Silva EA, Reseland JE, Heyward CA and Haugen HJ: Biological responses to physicochemical properties of biomaterial surface. Chem Soc Rev. 49:5178–5224. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
26	Cvrček L and Horáková M: Plasma modified polymeric materials for implant applications. In: Non-Thermal Plasma Technology for Polymeric Materials. Applications in Composites, Nanostructured Materials and Biomedical Fields. Thomas S, Mozetič M, Cvelbar U, Špatenka P and Praveen KM (eds). Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp376-407, 2019.
27	Groth T, Falck P and Miethke RR: Cytotoxicity of biomaterials-basic mechanisms and in vitro test methods: A review. ATLA. 23:790–799. 1995.
28	Iqbal HMN and Keshavarz T: The challenge of biocompatibility evaluation of biocomposites. In: Woodhead Publishing Series in Biomaterials, Biomedical composites (second edition). Ambrosio L (ed). Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp303-334, 2017.
29	Li W, Zhou J and Xu Y: Study of the in vitro cytotoxicity testing of medical devices. Biomed Rep. 3:617–620. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
30	Kohl Y, Rundén-Pran E, Mariussen E, Hesler M, El Yamani N, Longhin EM and Dusinska M: Genotoxicity of nanomaterials: Advances in vitro models and high throughput methods for human hazard assessment-a review. Nanomaterials (Basel). 10(1911)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
31	Raghavendra GM, Varaprasad K and Jayaramudu T: Biomaterials: Design, development and biomedical applications. In: Nanotechnology Applications for Tissue Engineering. Thomas S, Grohens Y and Ninan N (eds). Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp21-44, 2015.
32	Moore MM, Honma M, Clements J, Bolcsfoldi G, Burlinson B, Cifone M, Clarke J, Delongchamp R, Durward R, Fellows M, et al: Mouse lymphoma thymidine kinase gene mutation assay: Follow-up meeting of the international workshop on genotoxicity testing-aberdeen, scotland, 2003-assay acceptance criteria, positive controls, and data evaluation. Environ Mol Mutagen. 47:1–5. 2006.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
33	OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals. In vitro mammalian cell gene mutation assays using the thymidine kinase gene, 2014. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/testing/In%20Vitro%20Mammalian%20Cell%20Gene%20Mutation%20Thymidine%20Kinase%20.pdf.
34	OECD/OCED Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals. In vitro mammalian chromosomal aberration test, 2016. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264264649-en.pdf?expires=1615635244&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=AD494BA2A538E6C1302075C64D4C7BA5.
35	Registre M and Proudlock R: The in vitro aberration test. In: Genetic toxicology testing. Proudlock R (ed). Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp207-267, 2016.
36	Jain AK, Singh D, Dubey K, Maurya R, Mittal S and Pandey AK: Models and methods for in vitro toxicity. In: In vitro Toxicology. Dhawan A and Kwon S (eds). Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp45-65, 2018.
37	Guy RC: Ames test. In: Encyclopedia of Toxicology. 2nd edition. Wexler P (ed). Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp88-91, 2005.
38	De Jong WH, Caraway JW and Geertsma RE: In vivo and in vitro testing for the biological evaluation of biomaterials and medical devices. In: Woodhead Publishing Series in Biomaterials, Biocompatibility and Performance of Medical Devices. Boutrand JP (ed). Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp120-158, 2012.
39	Kimber I, Basketter DA, Berthold K, Butler M, Garrigue JL, Lea L, Newsome C, Roggeband R, Steiling W, Stropp G, et al: Skin sensitization testing in potency and risk assessment. Toxicol Sci. 59:198–208. 2001.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
40	Nalezinková M: In vitro hemocompatibility testing of medical devices. Thromb Res. 195:145–190. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
41	Brănișteanu DE, Nichifor M, Dorobăț CM, Brănișteanu DC, Petrariu FD, Molodoi AD, Radu DC and Boda D: Use of textile biomaterials for the topic treatment of chronic venous disease. Rom Biotechnol Lett. 20:10618–10625. 2015.
42	Weber M, Steinle H, Golombek S, Hann L, Schlensak C, Wendel HP and Avci-Adali M: Blood-contacting biomaterials: In vitro evaluation of the hemocompatibility. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 6(99)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
43	Anderson JM and Schoen FJ: In vivo assessment of tissue compatibility. In Biomaterials Science. 3rd edition. Ratner BD, Hoffman AS, Schien FJ and Lemons JE (eds). Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp609-617, 2013.
44	Anderson JM and Jiang S: Animal models in biomaterial development. In: Encyclopedia of biomedical engineering. Narayan R (ed). Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp237-241, 2019.
45	Hakimi O, Vollrath F and Carr AJ: Evaluation of silk as a scaffold for musculoskeletal regeneration-the path from the laboratory to clinical trials. In: Comprehensive biotechnology. 2nd edition. Moo-Young M (ed). Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp341-351, 2011.