Some aspects of macrophage behavior at the implant interface
Abstract
The macrophage plays a pivotal role in both wound healing and cellular response to implants, including percutaneous devices. Within twenty‐four hours macrophages were found in close contact with the implant surface. Eventually fibroplasts and connective tissue proliferate, and finally the implant will be encapsulated. The presence of macrophages is essential for the activation of collagen synthesis by fibroplasts. Implant shape and surface can profoundly affect macrophage behavior. At rough implant surfaces macrophages with giant cells are present for many months with the possibility of chronic granulomatous reactions. Superior tissue compatibility should be associated with smooth, well contoured implants with no acute angles.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Round, soft shapes are known to be better tolerated than sharp edges.
“Round, soft shapes are known to be better tolerated that sharp edges.17,25”
From Detailed Analysis of Insulin Absorption Variability and the Tissue Response to Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Catheter Implantation in Swine (2017) · cites this paper as [25]
Salthouse et al. observed that implants with smooth, well-contoured surfaces and no acute angles are more biocompatible.
“Salthouse et al. described that implant shape can profoundly affect macrophage behavior at the interface of percutaneous implants and observed that smooth, well contoured implants with no acute angles are more biocompatible20.”
From Size- and shape-dependent foreign body immune response to materials implanted in rodents and non-human primates (2015) · cites this paper as [20]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 10 · Cited by 176
- Authors
- Salthouse, T. N.
- Affiliations
- Clemson University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Salthouse, Thomas N.
- Venue
- Journal of Biomedical Materials Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1984-04
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 395-401
- ISSN
- 0021-9304 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-4636
- OpenAlex
- W2130030046
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 3.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Biomedical Materials Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
- Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
- Keywords
- macrophages, percutaneous implants, wound healing, fibroblast activation, collagen synthesis, implant surface roughness, implant shape, tissue encapsulation, histocompatibility
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Macrophages, Microscopy, Electron, Muscles, Nylons, Polyethylene Terephthalates, Polypropylenes, Wound Healing, Prostheses and Implants, Rats
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
