Silicon Implant in Middle Ear Reconstruction

Kawatra, Rahul; Maheshwari, Puneet; Saxena, Shikhar

doi:10.9790/0853-13962226

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Silicones have some demerits like fast degradation, color instability, and most importantly microbial deposition on the surface 11 . Presently two classes of prosthesis are in use, mainly autologous graft and biomaterials 12 . In this regard using autografts has some disadvantages like acquiring microbes on their surfaces, donor site morbidity, possibility of displacements but compared to autografts, biomaterial application as replacement purpose is considered as an ideal option at the present time 13 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocompatible implant mimicking cartilage: A new horizon for reconstructive facial field

Biswas¹,

Dey²,

Chakrabarty³

et al. 2020

Artificial Organs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cartilage is avascular with limited to no regenerative capacity, so its loss could be a challenge for reconstructive surgery. Current treatment options for damaged cartilage are also limited. In this aspect there is a tremendous need to develop an ideal cartilage‐mimicking biomaterial that could repair maxillofacial defects. Considering this fact in this study we have prepared twelve silicone‐based materials (using Silicone 40, 60, and 80) reinforced with hydroxyapatite, tri‐calcium phosphate, and titanium dioxide which itself has proven their efficacy in several studies and able to complement the shortcomings of using silicones. Among the mechanical properties (Young’s modulus, tensile strength, percent elongation, and hardness), hardness of Silicone‐40 showed similarities with goat ear (P > .05). Silicone peaks have been detected in FTIR. Both AFM morphology and SEM images of the samples confirmed more roughed surfaces. All the materials were nonhemolytic in hemocompatibility tests, but among the twelve materials S2, S3, S5, and S6 showed the least hemolysis. For all tested bacterial strains, adherence was lower on each material than that grown on the plain industrial silicone material which was used as a positive control. S2, S3, S5, and S6 samples were selected as the best based on mechanical characterizations, surface characterizations, in vitro hemocompatibility tests and bacterial adherence activity. So, outcomes of this present study would be promising when developing ideal cartilage‐mimicking biocomposites and their emerging applications to treat maxillofacial defects due to cartilage damage.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%