The Action‐Networks of Nanosilver: Bridging the Gap between Material and Biology

Abstract

The emergence of nanosilver (silver in nanoscale shapes and their assemblies) benefits the landscape of modern healthcare; however, this brings about concerns over its safety issues associated with an ultrasmall size and high mobility. By reviewing previous reporting details about the synthesis and characterization of nanosilver and its biological responses, a gap between materials synthesis and their biomedical uses is characterized by the insufficient understanding of the interacting and interplaying nanoscale actions of silver. To improve reporting quality and advance clinical translations, it is suggested that researchers have a comprehensive recognition of the "Indications for use" before designing innovative nanosilver-based materials and an "Action-network" concept addressing the acting range and strength of those nanoscale actions is implemented. Although this discussion is specific to nanosilver, the idea of "Indications for use" centered design and synthesis is generally applicable to other biomedical nanomaterials.

Antibacterial Designs for Implantable Medical Devices: Evolutions and Challenges

“…However, applications of these surfaces in “ uninfected tissues ” to prevent DAIs should be careful and in strict guidance, because the prolonged release of prophylactic antibiotics possibly contributes to arising resistant mutants [ 115 ]. Silver-based surfaces also have attractive efficacy in the prevention of DAIs [ 116 ], improper use of this material may also pose bacterial-resistant problems [ 117 , 118 ]. In addition, pathogenic bacteria have many defensive actions resistant to antimicrobial challenges [ 91 , 119 , 120 ]: (a) express polymer biofilms to protect themselves from antibiotic attacks; (b) remodel their outer surface to reduce antibiotic uptake; (c) synthesize precursors to modify the target of antimicrobials; (d) produce enzymes to detoxify dangerous drugs.…”

“…This evidence gave us a comprehensive understanding of the biological actions of various silver-, zinc-, and copper-based materials, which are extensively concerned with developing antibacterial surfaces for medical devices [ 116 , 265 ]. However, they are normally passive studies that just demonstrate the immune-interfering actions of synthetic antibacterial materials, rather than active studies directly taking advantage of immunomodulatory biomaterials to construct antibacterial activity.…”

“…Since not all the implantable medical devices are bound to a bacterial infection, antibacterial function, in our opinion, shall serve as a property secondary to those primary ones. This requires that the design, synthesis, and evaluation of implantable antibacterial surfaces should fit the needs of a specific “ intended use ”, which will help to clarify the exact biological environment that the material is intended to integrate [ 116 , 271 ]. This is crucial to choose proper routes for material synthesis, applicable parameters for material characterizations, and the right strategies for biological evaluations, enabling reproducible, comparable, and reusable results that will be consistent in clinical translation [ 271 ].…”

The antimicrobial effect of calcium-doped titanium is activated by fibrinogen adsorption

“…osseointegration for bone implants) performances of the implants. 8,[10][11][12] It was demonstrated that the high sensitivity of biomaterials to infections is related to bacterial contamination and undesirable host responses that compromise the intrinsic immune capability in defence against bacterial colonization. 13,14 In this respect, antibacterial designs addressing the intrinsic immune responses of the human body to tissue injuries would be more promising.…”

“…1–4 To reduce the infection risks, various surfaces directly targeting pathogenic microbes have been developed in terms of local release or/and direct contact actions of antibiotics, synthetic antimicrobial peptides, antibacterial metals/metal compounds (silver, copper, and zinc are the most common ones), etc. 5–9 Since mammalian and bacterial cells share many similar adhesive mechanisms, it is still a challenge to design multi-functional antimicrobial surfaces, i.e. simultaneously promoting the antibacterial efficacy and tissue-integration ( e.g.…”