Multifunctional biopolymer-based systems for biomedical devices: biointerface-driven design principles

Aiym Rakhmetova, Makpal Rakhatkyzy, Ayaulym Belgibayeva, Arailym Nurpeissova

Materials Today Advances, 2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1016/j.mtadv.2026.101030
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Objectives Multifunctional biopolymer-based systems are attractive for biomedical devices owing to their biocompatibility, structural versatility, and ability to interact functionally with biological tissues. Existing reviews, however, are organized mainly by material class or application and offer limited guidance on biointerface-driven design. This review uses biointerface behavior as the organizing principle for designing biopolymer-based biomedical devices. Methods Relevant literature was retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection, screened by title, abstract, and full text, and supplemented with landmark studies. Material platforms, structural engineering, multifunctionality, and biointerface design were integrated into a unified framework, within which hydrogels, films/coatings, nanofibers, and biocomposites were critically compared in terms of structure, property and biointerface relationships, advantages, limitations, and biomedical applications. Results Device performance in biointegrated systems depends on the concurrent optimization of mechanical compliance, adhesion, biodegradability, and electrical functionality rather than on any single property. Each platform shows characteristic biointerface failure modes, including dehydration and swelling mismatch in hydrogels, delamination in films, fiber fracture in nanofibers, and filler–matrix debonding in biocomposites. Biointerface characterization and biodegradability claims were often inconsistent or qualitative. Key challenges include the compliance–robustness trade-off, batch-to-batch variability, limited long-term biointerface data, and regulatory uncertainty. A biointerface-driven conceptual framework is proposed to guide material selection, structural engineering, and multifunctionality integration according to application-specific requirements. Conclusions Biopolymers act as active determinants of biointerface behavior rather than merely sustainable alternatives to synthetic polymers. The evidence base remains uneven, with limited replication and partial in vivo validation, so standardized evaluation protocols and long-term validation will be essential for clinical translation.