Reduced bacterial adhesion on ceramics used for arthroplasty applications

Copper-Doped Bioactive Glass as Filler for PMMA-Based Bone Cements: Morphological, Mechanical, Reactivity, and Preliminary Antibacterial Characterization

“…Accordingly, we decided to introduce copper-doped bioactive glass into commercial CEMEX ® bone cement to confer antibacterial properties. To test this hypothesis, an MDR S. epidermidis was selected as the test strain due to its high rate of orthopedic infections [ 43 , 48 ].…”

“…Then, sterile specimens were placed in a 24 multiwell plate (Nunclon Delta Surface, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) and submerged with 1 mL of LB medium containing 1 × 10 5 cells/mL, prepared as previously described. The plate was incubated for 90 min at 37 °C under agitation at 120 rpm to force biofilm cell adhesion onto the specimen surface (adhesion phase) [ 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. Supernatants were then extracted to remove floating planktonic cells (separation phase) and specimens were gently washed 3 times with PBS to remove non-adherent cells [ 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ].…”

Implant materials and prosthetic joint infection: the battle with the biofilm

“…26,41 In vitro studies have shown ceramics to have advantageous physical-chemical surface properties to discourage biofilm formation when compared to other implant materials demonstrating reduced bacterial adhesion and slower biofilm development. 42 Clinically there has been evidence of an anti-infective effect of ceramic bearings compared to polyethylene; in an infected total hip arthroplasty retrieval study higher bacterial counts were observed on polyethylene liners compared with ceramic liners. 43,44 The protective benefit of ceramic bearings against PJI has also been demonstrated in large cohort studies, most notably in a recent well powered and controlled assessment of the UK National Joint Registry, which demonstrated a protective benefit of ceramic bearings against PJI after two years.…”

“…16,45 This delayed effect may suggest that the advantageous surface properties may confer only part of the protection against PJI; the tendency for bioceramics to undergo little surface degradation, compared to metals and polymers, may be a factor as they maintain their surface smoothness into the medium to long term. 42…”

Modification of the Ceramic Implant Surfaces from Zirconia by the Magnetron Sputtering of Different Calcium Phosphate Targets: A Comparative Study

“…In addition, as a result of the brittle nature of ceramics, the ceramic itself can be susceptible to fractures under certain conditions. Despite these disadvantages, ceramic implants have no alternatives in some areas of traumatology and orthopaedics, including the endoprostheses of small joints (finger, foot and wrist joints), ankle bone, intervertebral discs, femoral head, knee joint and teeth [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. Ceramic steel made from alumina (Al 2 O 3 ) or zirconia (ZrO 2 ) is the most widely used ceramic implant material [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ].…”