Comparison of bacterial and tissue cell initial adhesion on hydrophilic/hydrophobic biomaterials

Abstract

In this study, interactions of widely-used polymeric biomaterials, i.e. poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (PHEMA) and its copolymer with dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate (PHEMA-20% DMAEMA), polyurethane (PU), polypropylene (PP), poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC), and poly(lactide-glycolide) (PLGA), with three pathogenic bacteria and one nonpathogen were investigated comparatively with the adhesion of two tissue cells in different morphologies, i.e. fibroblast-like baby hamster kidney (BHK 21) cells and epithelial Madine Darby kidney (MDBK) cells. Biomaterials were prepared in the membrane form by bulk polymerization or solvent casting. Surface characterization studies showed that these polymers have different surface free energies in the range of 26.9-63.1 erg cm(-2) and they have smooth surfaces. The bacteria used were; Escherichia coli ATCC 25922, Staphylococcus epidermidis ATCC 12228, Staphylococcus aureus, and Lactobacillus acidophilus B-13. Initial adhesion of bacteria to the polymeric surfaces was examined under static conditions and in a laminar flow cell. The adhesion behaviour of S. aureus and S. epidermidis was found independent of the polymeric surface hydrophobicity. However, the percentage of attached E. coli decreased when increasing the surface free energy of the polymer, while L. acidophilus showed just the opposite behaviour. The comparative results indicated that the adhesion of BHK and MDBK cell was lowest on the most hydrophilic PHEMA surface and highest on the most hydrophobic PP surface. In contrast to the case of bacterial adhesion, no relationship was found between polymer hydrophobicity and mammalian cell adherence.

Comparison of the adherence of E.Coli and S. Aureus to ten different prosthetic mesh grafts: In vitro experimental study

“…This may be related to the high surface free energy of these composite grafts. The percentage of attached E. coli has been reported to decrease as the surface free energy of the polymer increases [2]. In another study, adhesiveness correlated directly with the surface electronegativity of Staphylococcus epidermidis, but inversely for E. coli [23].…”

“…With the increasing popularity of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair, many combination meshes have been designed for intraperitoneal placement [1][2][3][4]. However, the prosthetic mesh grafts used in the repair of abdominal wall and inguinal hernias may become contaminated during the perioperative period or it may be necessary to place the prosthesis in an infected body compartment.…”

“…In addition, infection may complicate the implantation of a prosthetic material after clean surgery [3,[5][6][7][8]. The repair method or type of mesh used to repair the abdominal wall after intestinal resections, cholecystectomies, the drainage of intra-abdominal abscesses, or resection of cancer remains controversial [2,9,10].…”

Influence of nanophase titania topography on bacterial attachment and metabolism

“…Bacterial adhesion is, thus, affected by surface properties (Litzler et al 2007;Schildhauer et al 2007) such as hydrophobicity (Schackenraad et al 1992;Bos et al 2000;Karakeçili and Gümü derelioglu 2002), hydrophilicity (Kiss et al 1996;Gomez-Suarez et al 2002), steric hindrance (Kuhl et al 1994;Rijnaarts et al 1999), and surface roughness (Medilanski et al 2002;Whitehead et al 2006). There is a positive correlation between protein adsorption and short-term bacterial attachment with surface property changes (Cunliffe et al 2003).…”

Bacterial adhesion to diamond‐like carbon as compared to stainless steel

“…All organisms were harvested by centrifugation at 6500g and bacteria were washed three times with demineralized water and finally suspended in 200 mL phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, 10 mM potassium phosphate, 150 mM NaCl, pH 6.8) at a cell density of 3 3 10 8 mL 21 . Bacterial adhesion was evaluated in a parallel plate flow chamber at a shear rate of 15.7 s 21 , 18 and expressed in terms of the number of bacteria adhering after 4 hours (n 4h , cells cm 22 ) as well as by the ease at which adhering bacteria could be detached by an air-bubble passing through the flow chamber. Detachment is reported in terms of the percentage of bacteria detached from a surface (%D).…”