Biomaterials immobilized with chitosan for rechargeable antimicrobial drug delivery

Lv, Wei; Ji, Luo; Deng, Ying; Sun, Yuyu

doi:10.1002/jbm.a.34350

Cited by 31 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To reduce the risk of infection, various techniques of synthesis and modification of biomaterials are currently used. These include biomaterials made of substances with natural antimicrobial properties (like chitosan) or synthetic polymers (for example ePTFE), which reduce adhesion of pathogenic microorganisms to their surface, as well as coating the biomaterial surface with metal ions, antibiotics, or antimicrobial peptides [45][46][47][48][49]. Due to the fact that silver particles have a wide spectrum of activity, they negatively affect the development of both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Serine Protease Inhibitors—New Molecules for Modification of Polymeric Biomaterials

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three serine protease inhibitors (AEBSF, soy inhibitor, α1-antitrypsin) were covalently immobilized on the surface of three polymer prostheses with the optimized method. The immobilization efficiency ranged from 11 to 51%, depending on the chosen inhibitor and biomaterial. The highest activity for all inhibitors was observed in the case of immobilization on the surface of the polyester Uni-Graft prosthesis, and the preparations obtained showed high stability in the environment with different pH and temperature values. Modification of the Uni-Graft prosthesis surface with the synthetic AEBSF inhibitor and human α1-antitrypsin inhibited the adhesion and multiplication of Staphylococcus aureus subs. aureus ATCC® 25923TM and Candida albicans from the collection of the Department of Genetics and Microbiology, UMCS. Optical profilometry analysis indicated that, after the immobilization process on the surface of AEBSF-modified Uni-Graft prostheses, there were more structures with a high number of protrusions, while the introduction of modifications with a protein inhibitor led to the smoothing of their surface.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Serine Protease Inhibitors—New Molecules for Modification of Polymeric Biomaterials

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Injectable or implantable antibacterial biomaterials need to own a strong bactericidal ability to control pre-existing infections. 9 A variety of concepts and methods have been developed to endow the biomaterials with antimicrobial properties. Here we review the recent progress and work on the application of antibacterial biomaterials for biomedical devices, concentrating on metals with antibacterial coatings/surfaces and intrinsically antibacterial materials owing to their widespread use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antimicrobial materials with medical applications

Sun

Shahzad

et al. 2014

Materials Technology

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite intensive and considerable research achievements by material scientists and biologists, the problems of infections related to medical devices and implants remain knotty. The biofilm related infections are much harder to eradicate due to protection of extracellular polymeric substance secreted by the biofilms, hence shows a strong resistance to conventional antibiotics. Thus, there is a huge challenge for researchers to seek effective methods to combat device related bacterial infections ignited by biofilms to mitigate potential health risks and massive financial burdens to healthcare systems. Here we review the most recent progress and work on the applications of antibacterial biomaterials for the biomedical devices, concentrating on metals with antibacterial coatings/surfaces, antibacterial stainless steels and other commonly used antibacterial materials.

show abstract

“…Scanning electron microscopy images of biofilm formation on implants resembled images from similar retrieved infected implants [10,52] with rounded S aureus and rod-shaped P aeruginosa colonies visible in untreated groups. Formation of fibrous tissue, to varying degrees, along the outer portion of the wire exposed to soft tissue was seen with morphology that may be indicative of fibroblast or macrophage infiltration [3,23,36]. Material properties of the coating may have contributed to this response [26,77]; however, the majority of the fibrous tissue was formed at the point of the wire that curved and extended from the catheter, which may have been a location for rubbing and irritation as the animals moved or were groomed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel Antibiotic-loaded Point-of-care Implant Coating Inhibits Biofilm

Jennings

Carpenter

Troxel

et al. 2015

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Orthopaedic biomaterials are susceptible to biofilm formation. A novel lipid-based material has been developed that may be loaded with antibiotics and applied as an implant coating at point of care. However, this material has not been evaluated for antibiotic elution, biofilm inhibition, or in vivo efficacy.Questions/purposes (1) Do antibiotic-loaded coatings inhibit biofilm formation? (2) Is the coating effective in preventing biofilm in vivo? Methods Purified phosphatidylcholine was mixed with 25% amikacin or vancomycin or a combination of 12.5% of both. A 7-day elution study for coated titanium and stainless steel coupons was followed by turbidity and zone of inhibition assays against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Coupons were inoculated with bacteria and incubated 24 hours (N = 4 for each test group). Microscopic images of biofilm were obtained. After washing and vortexing, attached bacteria were counted. A mouse biofilm model was modified to include coated and uncoated stainless steel wires inserted into the lumens of catheters inoculated with a mixture of S aureus or P aeruginosa. Colony-forming unit counts (N = 10) and scanning electron microscopy imaging of implants were used to determine antimicrobial activity. Results Active antibiotics with colony inhibition effects were eluted for up to 6 days. Antibiotic-loaded coatings inhibited biofilm formation on in vitro coupons (log-fold reductions of 4.3 ± 0.4 in S aureus and 3.1 ± 0 for P aeruginosa in phosphatidylcholine-only coatings, 5.6 ± 0 for S aureus and 3.1 ± 0 for P aeruginosa for combinationloaded coatings, 5.5 ± 0.3 for S aureus in vancomycinloaded coatings, and 3.1 ± 0 for P aeruginosa for amikacinloaded coatings (p \ 0.001 for all comparisons of antibiotic-loaded coatings against uncoated controls for both bacterial strains, p \ 0.001 for comparison of antibioticloaded coatings against phosphatidylcholine only for S aureus, p = 0.54 for comparison of vancomycin versus combination coating in S aureus, P = 0.99 for comparison of antibiotic-and unloaded phosphatidylcholine coatings in P aeruginosa). Similarly, antibiotic-loaded coatings reduced attachment of bacteria to wires in vivo (log-fold

show abstract

Biomaterials immobilized with chitosan for rechargeable antimicrobial drug delivery

Cited by 31 publications

References 39 publications

Serine Protease Inhibitors—New Molecules for Modification of Polymeric Biomaterials

Serine Protease Inhibitors—New Molecules for Modification of Polymeric Biomaterials

Antimicrobial materials with medical applications

Novel Antibiotic-loaded Point-of-care Implant Coating Inhibits Biofilm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About