Untitled

Abstract

Adhesion of tissues to biomaterials is desirable to prevent bacterial proliferation and for epithelial/transmucosal sealing of transcutaneous appliances, but can be counter-productive elsewhere, e.g. implants contacting tendons or maxillofacial subcutaneous tissue. It is therefore important to gauge adhesion strength of tissues to biomaterials before clinical use. Peel-testing is widely used for industrial product adhesion monitoring, but has rarely been applied biomedically. Here we describe peel-testing instrumentation designed for testing adherence of soft tissues to biomaterials. It offers the advantage that a 90 degrees angle between peel and substrate is maintained, simplifying determination of applied normal forces separating tissue layers from material surfaces. The device is portable and can be brought directly to the specimen removal site. This minimizes time delays between explantation and testing, maintaining the tissue/biomaterial interface in the freshest possible state closely approximating in vivo conditions, and so avoids measurement artifacts. So far, the instrument has been used to test adhesion of tape to a biomaterial surface (for determining the device's technical performance), assess strength of tissue adhesives, and measure adhesion of subcutaneous tissue to orthopaedic biomaterials. However, its versatility suggests additional applications for the peel-tester where adhesion of soft tissue to biomaterials is of interest.

Multifunctional gentamicin supplementation of poly(γ‐glutamic acid)‐based hydrogels for wound dressing application

“…A wound dressing with a smooth surface structure could effectively counteract adhesion and would be easy to peel off the wound, thus being easily removable and comfortable to wear 47, 48. Peeling‐testing is a well‐established methodology in industrial applications involving membrane adhesives and has been used to a limited extent in the biomaterials field 49. Thus, according to the peel adhesion force test on the genipin‐crosslinked gelatin and γ‐PGA–gelatin membranes, the mean peel strength (N/m) was 168.3 ± 15.1 for 10.00% gelatin and 109.8 ± 9.4 for γ‐PGA : gelatin in a ratio of 3.75% : 10.00%.…”

Multipurpose and Durable Adhesive Hydrogel Assisted by Adenine and Uracil from Ribonucleic Acid

“…However, excessn ucleobase molecules led to self-assembly into aggregates because of hydrophobic interactions, whichw ould weaken the cohesive force of hydrogels, leading to ad ecrease of expressive adhesive strength of the hydrogel. Moreover,acomparison of interfacial adhesion energy for various adhesive materials is shown in Figure5d; the adhesion energy of AU-tackified adhesive hydrogel was superior than that of DOPA-modified hydrogels,n anoparticle gels, tissue adhesive, and elastomer adhesive, [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] whichc onfirmed the tackifying effect of nucleobase from RNA. Aw ide range of interfacial adhesion energies would be required for practical applications.…”

Instant tough bonding of hydrogels for soft machines and electronics

“…2A; see details in Materials and Methods) ( 15 , 26 ) on various hydrogels (PHEMA, PAAm/alginate, and PVA), where tough versions dissipate a substantial amount of mechanical energy through the breakup of noncovalent bonds in their bulk. Following initial elastic deformation of hydrogel and, where applicable, elastomer, a stable plateau region in the displacement versus normalized peeling force (identical to interfacial energy; Fig.…”