Designing the Biocompatibility of Biohybrids - Tissue Engineering: Cell-Surface Interactions for Tissue Culture - page 293

synthetic polymers responsible for an enhanced osseointegration, especially for
improving the adhesion of osteoblasts [ 47 - 49 ], bioactive proteins which serve as
growth factors [ 50 , 51 ], antiinflammatory proteins [ 52 ] or antimicrobial substances
to prevent biofilm production [ 53 , 54 ].
5 General Advantages and Limitations of Biohybrids
The general advantages of implantable biohybrids are the sustainable release of
physiologically or therapeutically needed molecules (drugs) and the ability for life-
long replacement of a specific tissue function. However, therapeutic cell trans-
plantation in combination with biomaterials usually conforms to the regulations of
a regenerative medicine product (RMP) which requires a more complex process
for certification than sole structural treatment strategies using only biomaterials
[ 55 ]. If the biomaterial is biodegradable, it becomes even more complex since the
degradation (by-)products need to prove general biocompatibility as well as
cytocompatibility to the transplanted cells. Overall, these complex regulatory
processes may prevent the interest of companies in biohybrid implants if the
advantage for the clinical treatment and the market is not clearly obvious.
6 Conclusions
Biohybrids are designed functional units composed of a structural and a bioactive
component which serves for a specific purpose in regenerative medicine, health
care or environmental sciences. As implants, these highly complex systems need to
prove the biocompatibility of the biomaterial and the immune tolerance of the
transplanted cells or bioactive molecules. In this sense, biohybrid implants are
clearly more challenging than the sole application of its components. However,
great hope and therapeutical potential is currently associated with this sustainable
long-term therapeutical approach. We have attempted to provide a classification to
keep the term biohybrid in a clear context in biomedical research.
References
1. Williams DF (1999) The Williams dictionary of biomaterials. Liverpool University Press,
Liverpool
2. Anderson JM, Rodriguez A, Chang DT (2008) Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin
Immunol 20:86-100
3. Franz S, Rammelt S, Scharnweber D, Simon JC (2011) Immune responses to implants—a
review of the implications for the design of immunomodulatory biomaterials. Biomaterials
32:6692-6709