+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

In vivo biocompatibility of three potential intraperitoneal implants

In vivo biocompatibility of three potential intraperitoneal implants

Macromolecular Bioscience 11(10): 1336-1345

The intraperitoneal biocompatibility of PDMS, polyHEMA and pEVA was investigated in rats, rabbits and rhesus monkeys. No inflammation was evidenced by hematological analyses and measurement of inflammatory markers throughout the experiment and by post-mortem examination of the pelvic cavity. After 3 or 6 months, histological analysis revealed fibrous tissue encapsulating PDMS and PEVA implants in all species and polyHEMA implants in rabbits and monkeys. Calcium deposits were observed inside polyHEMA implants. The intraperitoneal biocompatibility of all 3 polymers makes them suitable for the design of drug delivery systems, which may be of great interest for pathologies confined to the pelvic cavity.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 053778674

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 21823236

DOI: 10.1002/mabi.201100077

Related references

In vitro and in vivo biocompatibility testing of orthopaedic implants. Indian Veterinary Journal 75(12): 1117-1119, 1998

Biocompatibility and in vivo gentamicin release from bioactive sol-gel glass implants. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 61(3): 458-465, 2002

In vivo biocompatibility of Mg implants surface modified by nanostructured merwinite/PEO. Journal of Materials Science. Materials in Medicine 26(5): 184-184, 2016

A comparison of biocompatibility and osseointegration of ceramic and titanium implants: an in vivo and in vitro study. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 41(5): 638-645, 2012

In vivo documentation of cellular reactions on lens surfaces for assessing the biocompatibility of different intraocular implants. Eye 8: 649-656, 1994

In vivo biocompatibility of boron doped and nitrogen included conductive-diamond for use in medical implants. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part B, Applied Biomaterials 104(1): 19-26, 2016

Effect of degree of conversion on in vivo biocompatibility of flowable resin used for bioprotection of mini-implants. Angle Orthodontist 86(1): 157-163, 2015

Pathological potential of intraperitoneal transmitter implants in beavers. Journal of Wildlife Management 51(3): 605-606, 1987

Silastic with polyacrylic acid filler: Swelling properties, biocompatibility and potential use in cochlear implants. Biomaterials 15(14): 1161-1169, 1994

Hydroxyapatite-coated magnesium implants with improved in vitro and in vivo biocorrosion, biocompatibility, and bone response. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A 102(2): 429-441, 2014

Zr61Ti2Cu25Al12 metallic glass for potential use in dental implants: biocompatibility assessment by in vitro cellular responses. Materials Science & Engineering. C, Materials for Biological Applications 33(4): 2113-2121, 2013

Autologous satellite cell seeding improves in vivo biocompatibility of homologous muscle acellular matrix implants. International Journal of Molecular Medicine 10(2): 177-182, 2002

Potential use of porous titanium-niobium alloy in orthopedic implants: preparation and experimental study of its biocompatibility in vitro. Plos One 8(11): E79289-E79289, 2014