Talk:Biocompatible material

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

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Misleading

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Change name to biomedical material

message: 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)
thread_title: Biomaterial (for medical devices)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Merger with article Biomaterial