Talk:Biocompatible material

Untitled

oldu gözlerim doldu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.175.130.60 (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a feeling that biomaterials is a category in its own right, that could include materials such as PLGA, Teflon, etc etc. Does anyone else think this is necessary? Foscoe 05:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• of course they are, but compared to what other materials?
• if you want to make a complete list of materials it is probably better to start a wikiproject and/or create a new cathegory to add to any articles about such materials.
• what does "oldu gözlerim doldu" mean?

Benkeboy 19:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitions

I've removed the following definitions from the article. Wikipedia can create its own definition without referring to a list of mostly irrelevant or bad definitions. —Pengo 01:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Six definitions of the word biomaterial and some comments

• 1. non-viable material used in a medical device, intended to interact with biological systems.

ESB Consensus Conference I

• 2. material intended to interface with biological systems to evaluate, treat, augment or replace any tissue, organ or function of the body

ESB Consensus Conference II - Note - This is refined version of definition 1 so that the reference to non-viable materials was removed and that made the intended functions of biomaterials more explicit. This is the recommended definition.

• 3. synthetic, natural or modified natural material intended to be in contact and interact with the biological system

ISO - This definition from an ISO Technical Report is not recommended since it implies that tissues are biomaterials which they are not and because of the ambiguity of the phrase “in contact”

• 4. any substance (other than a drug), synthetic or natural, that can be used as a system or part of a system that treats, augments, or replaces any tissue, organ, or function of the body.

Dorland Medical - Note - This definition is not recommended since it does not imply any reference to an interface with tissues, furthermore this definition would include any microelectronic component of a pacemaker that is not normally considered to be a biomaterial.

• 5. solid materials which occur in and are made by living organisms, such as chitin, fibrin or bone.

Larousse Science - Note – This definition is not recommended since it aims at materials of biological origin (bio-material) rather than materials to be used in medical devices. See more on Biotic material and bio-based materials.

• 6. a systemically and pharmacologically inert substance designed for implantation within or in corporation with living systems

The Clemson University Advisory Board for Biomaterials - Note - this seems to be a remainder from the time when everyone thought that a biomaterial should be inert to achieve optimal biocompatibility but this is no longer the case.

References

• Dorland medical dictionary
• Larousse dictionary of science and technology
• William's dictionary of biomaterials, DF Williams, 1999, ISBN 0-85323-921-5

Misleading

Regarding the statement, "biomaterial is different from a biological material"- Whereas it has become the connotation in material sciences and medicine the term biomaterial can be used as a shorten form of "biological derived material", "bioapplicable material" or "bioassumable material" etc. depending on the nature of the specific research. It is rather ironic, that the phrase "biological material" is used to describe what is NOT a biomaterial, though bio+material is a conjugation of the words "biological" and "material."

As a researcher in biopolymers, note this is not short for synthetic polymers, but in vivo polymers, and biocomposites, again living tissues, I feel this is misleading to the general science readership. I feel the connotation of the word is being presented as the denotation.

AJH

Department of Physics, Tampa, FL

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.209.249 (talk • contribs)

What would you suggest as a better title for what the article currently describes? "Bioapplicable material" perhaps? The page should be moved to a more specific title and the "Biomaterial" article turned into a disambiguation page. Your input is valued. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

the term biomaterial is more likely an abbreviation of biomedical + material since that is the application and has nothing to do with its origin. The first succesful biomaterial probably was catgut for use as suture material. The first modern biomaterials were all non-biologically derived: metal (titanium and steel) or synthethic polymers (PMMA and teflon). I do not know when the term biomaterial first was used in the context of implant and surgical applications. Benkeboy 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Change name to biomedical material

I agree with Foscoe and AJH. so one suggestion: what about renaming this article to biomedical material? then we get around the inherent nonsense of the term biocompatible material. Benkeboy 12:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I have more frequently heard the term biocompatible material used. The problem is that the adjetive biomedical is more broad than biocompatible and could refer to anything having to do with Biomedical Engineering (i.e. a material to grow cells on in the laboratory). Biomedeng 15:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, it is very odd to use the term biocompatible material since it is not a material property but only something that can be stated in its context of clinical application. compare with Williams definition on biocompatibility. Most people that use "biocompatible" want to say that their material do not elicit any host response which is not necessarily something you may want to aim for, but that depends on the context, ie the clinical application they have in mind.

On second thought it may be better to rename the article biomaterial (implant) since biomaterial is the term used both by scientist and laymen. There is a reason for why there are biomaterial societies and even a journal named Biomaterials that deal with material used for implants and tissue engineering constructs. Benkeboy 19:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

On third thought: biomaterial (medicine) since not all clinical application of biomaterials are implants. Perhaps, better delete this and expand the discussion under biocompatibility on the confusion of the words biocompatible and biocompatibility, to start a new article on biomaterials (medicine)? Benkeboy 10:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sort of an aside...I work with materials that are made from biological sources. An example would be plastics made from chicken feathers. We use the term bio-based material to describe these things because it seems that biomaterial is used to describe many medical-type things that are not necessarily made from biologial materials. ike9898 13:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think your alternatives are better, and I like biomaterial (implant). I don't like biomaterial (medicine) as much because there is a lot of research in this area and you could have a biomaterial suitable for an implant but maybe it is not yet used medically. I think a bio-based material would be a subset of this topic and might be worthwhile to include in the article, but clearly there are some biomaterials that are completely synthetic. Biomedeng 16:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If you attend any of the biomaterial societies meetings there are plenty of new and old (combinations) of materials that are described as biomaterial solely based on its current OR intended use in a medical device. Anyway, I still think that the term biocompatible is a remnant from the time when it was thought that the materials in medical devices should be inert. That is, not elicit any kind of host response. There of course are bio-based materials suitable and/or under investigation for use in medical devices but that does not preclude those materials from a host of other non-medical applications. And I repeat again, the term biocompatibility is contextual! Biocompatibility is NOT an inherent property. The Williams dictionary states that biomedical material is a synonym for biomaterial according to the Williams definition of the same. Benkeboy 12:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

But biomaterials may be used for medical devices that are not implants: Biomaterial (for medical devices) Benkeboy 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Biomaterial (for medical devices)

Suggestion of layout of an article with this name. Note this should be about the materials, and not medical devices.

Williams definition = ESB second consensus conference. A biomaterial is a “material intended to interface with biological systems to evaluate, treat, augment or replace any tissue, organ or function of the body”.

Comments to the definition Biomaterials is thus used by itself or together with other materials combined to make up medical devices (including biosensors?)

Classes of biomaterials used for medical devices: Metals and alloys - Titanium, TiAlmVn, Steel, more? Ceramics - Natural (corals, bone..) and synthethic (HA, TCP, etc) Polymers - Natural (biopolymers – starch, chitosan, silk fibroin ....) and synthethic (PLLA, teflon, ...) Composites and surface treatments One material may not be enough to match the requirements of both fulfilling the intended function (of the medical device) and adopting to the physiological environement. So composited and surface treatments are a way of enhancing either bulk or surface properties.

Perhaps not so much about the medical devices are used for. Better to expand that article instead?

Brief history Sutures in egyptian mumies (also in live persons?) Gold etc used to repair teeth (fillings and bridges) – phoenicians etc Aseptic procedures developed in the late 19th century Lots of testing by various doctors 1850-1970, thereafter more strictly regulated. Benkeboy 17:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger with article Biomaterial

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus for merger. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

---

No, for the simple reason that there are no biocompatible materials. Biocompatibility depends on the clinical context, hence no single material can be compatible with all. Instead I suggest deletion of the article "biocompatible material". Benkeboy (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that biocompatibility is specific to a certain function. A biomaterial which may be used in one application may not be (bio)compatible in another. -- 02:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bismuthe (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article had no citations and had almost identical information as the biomaterial article. The tiny tidbit of information that was here and wasn't not located in biomaterial is being added, with a reference. It was seemingly obvious this article should redirect to biomaterial.Lostraven (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)