Evolving strategies for preventing biofilm on implantable materials

Shah, Sarita R.; Tatara, Alexander M.; D’Souza, Rena N.; Mikos, Antonios G.; Kasper, F. Kurtis

doi:10.1016/j.mattod.2013.05.003

Cited by 90 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most implant materials suitable for controlled release of a medical drug are preloaded, releasing only one compound until depletion. Hence, they focus mainly on antimicrobial or antibiofilm activity [18,50]. Sundararaj et al [51] recently designed a multiple drug delivery system directed at periodontitis, which sequentially releases compounds that eliminate the infection, inhibit inflammation, prevent tissue destruction and aid in bone regeneration, which might be suitable for treatment of peri-implantitis as well.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel anti-infective implant substrates: Controlled release of antibiofilm compounds from mesoporous silica-containing macroporous titanium

Braem

Cremer

Delattin

et al. 2015

Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel anti-infective implant substrates: Controlled release of antibiofilm compounds from mesoporous silica-containing macroporous titanium

Braem

Cremer

Delattin

et al. 2015

Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…New manufacturing techniques, such as the advent of high-resolution bioprinting 72,73 , are allowing for the rapid creation of personalized devices to an extent that was not previously possible. Infections, which often plagued implantation of foreign materials like scaffolds, are being mitigated by advances in anti-infective strategies such as biofilm-repulsing surfaces and antibiotic-delivering materials 74 . Synthetic biology and genetic engineering techniques are being utilized to reprogram cells to optimize healing 60 .…”

Section: Future Directions and Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tissue Engineering in Orthopaedics

Tatara

Mikos

2016

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Commonly used local antibiotic delivery systems range from antibiotic-loaded bone cement to calcium-based drug delivery systems to sprinkling antibiotics within the wound site [8,24,40,42]. Recent developments have been focused on degradable and customizable local delivery strategies to ensure coverage of the wound, effective antibiotic elution, and minimization of secondary procedures [15,30,60]. These local delivery strategies include degradable sponges [50], injectable biomaterials [48,53,80], and coatings of antimicrobial molecules on implanted surfaces [25,30,43,66].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

Evolving strategies for preventing biofilm on implantable materials

Cited by 90 publications

References 92 publications

Novel anti-infective implant substrates: Controlled release of antibiofilm compounds from mesoporous silica-containing macroporous titanium

Novel anti-infective implant substrates: Controlled release of antibiofilm compounds from mesoporous silica-containing macroporous titanium

Tissue Engineering in Orthopaedics

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About