In vitro biocompatiblity of modified polycarbonate as a biomaterial

Vani, Kohila; Thomas, Susha; Prabhawathi, Veluchamy; Thulasinathan, Boobalan; Sawant, Shilpa N.; Doble, Mukesh

doi:10.1016/j.colsurfb.2013.01.067

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Polycarbonate (PC) is an important thermoplastic material that finds many uses, including in optical, biomedical, patterned microarray assay, and microfluidic devices . PC is generally rigid, optically clear, and has good chemical and thermal stability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Etching and Post‐Treatment Surface Stability of Track‐Etched Polycarbonate Membranes by Plasma Processing Using Various Related Oxidizing Plasma Systems

Tompkins

Dennison

Fisher

2014

Plasma Processes & Polymers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oxidizing plasmas (O 2 , CO 2 , H 2 O (g), and formic acid (g)) were used to modify track-etched polycarbonate (PC) membranes and explore the mechanisms and species responsible for etching. Etch rates were measured using scanning electron microscopy; modified surfaces were characterized with X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and water contact angle. These results were combined with optical emission spectroscopy to provide insight into etch mechanisms. Although oxide functionalities implanted were similar, H 2 O (g) and formic acid vapor plasmas yielded the lowest contact angles. The CO 2 , H 2 O (g), and formic acid (g) plasmamodified surfaces were found to be similarly stable 1 month after treatment. Etch rate correlated directly to the relative gas-phase density of atomic oxygen and hydroxyl radicals.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Etching and Post‐Treatment Surface Stability of Track‐Etched Polycarbonate Membranes by Plasma Processing Using Various Related Oxidizing Plasma Systems

Tompkins

Dennison

Fisher

2014

Plasma Processes & Polymers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Biofilm formation is mediated through motility by flagella, attachment and microcolony formation by type 1 fimbriae, curli and exopolysaccharides like PGA and colonic acid, antigen 43 as well as other factors for later biofilm maturation [29]. Increased biofilm growth after PDMS exposition might have been caused by the large number of hydrophobic amino acid residues on E. coli flagella, which makes the surface of E. coli very hydrophobic promoting contact of E. coli to hydrophobic surfaces like polystyrene and other polymers [30,31].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of polymerized siloxane coating on growth and biofilm formation of aerobic grown nosocomial bacteria

Niebergall

Pfeiffer

Gruber

et al. 2018

JCB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent study showed that polymerized siloxane (PDMS) coating of biomaterials like polycarbonate, stainless steel or glass results in a hydrophobic and positively charged surface, which is known to be advantageous for cell adhesion. However, when Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis were cultured on PDMS coated materials for one hour, this resulted in a significant decrease of bacterial adherence compared to non-coated materials. The study therefore aimed at investigating antimicrobial effects of PDMS. We used nosocomial aerobic grown bacteria S. epidermidis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, E. coli and the biofilm formation model organism Bacillus subtilis, which were exposed to PDMS in a planktonic culture assay and additionally while biofilm formation. PDMS had a significant impact on the growth of these bacteria in both culture assays. In planktonic culture, PDMS exposition resulted in a decreased growth of all bacteria tested, which was strongly species specific. Biofilm culture in contrast caused an increased growth of E. coli and P. aeruginosa, while growth of S. epidermidis and B. subtilis was decreased. However, these results are based on tests of single species biofilms. Previous to practical application it is necessary to confirm these results by tests in which different bacterial species are able to interact like in natural biofilms resulting in modified bacterial growth behavior and toxin resistance.

show abstract

“…Hence, this initial attachment can be reduced by manipulating the surface properties of the biomaterial. For instance, in a study on polycarbonate, the surface chemistry was modified so as to make the surface more hydrophilic, which resulted in reduced bacterial adhesion . Additionally, the surface properties of a biomaterial also have a bearing on the adsorption of proteins like albumin, collagen, vitronectin, fibrinogen and fibronectin from the serum and extracellular matrix (ECM), when implanted inside the body.…”

Section: Bacteria—material/tissue Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engineered biomaterial and biophysical stimulation as combinatorial strategies to address prosthetic infection by pathogenic bacteria

Boda

Basu

2016

J. Biomed. Mater. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A plethora of antimicrobial strategies are being developed to address prosthetic infection. The currently available methods for implant infection treatment include the use of antibiotics and revision surgery. Among the bacterial strains, Staphylococcus species pose significant challenges particularly, with regard to hospital acquired infections. In order to combat such life threatening infectious diseases, researchers have developed implantable biomaterials incorporating nanoparticles, antimicrobial reinforcements, surface coatings, slippery/non-adhesive and contact killing surfaces. This review discusses a few of the biomaterial and biophysical antimicrobial strategies, which are in the developmental stage and actively being pursued by several research groups. The clinical efficacy of biophysical stimulation methods such as ultrasound, electric and magnetic field treatments against prosthetic infection depends critically on the stimulation protocol and parameters of the treatment modality. A common thread among the three biophysical stimulation methods is the mechanism of bactericidal action, which is centered on biophysical rupture of bacterial membranes, the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and bacterial membrane depolarization evoked by the interference of essential ion-transport. Although the extent of antimicrobial effect, normally achieved through biophysical stimulation protocol is insufficient to warrant therapeutic application, a combination of antibiotic/ROS inducing agents and biophysical stimulation methods can elicit a clinically relevant reduction in viable bacterial numbers. In this review, we present a detailed account of both the biomaterial and biophysical approaches for achieving maximum bacterial inactivation. Summarizing, the biophysical stimulation methods in a combinatorial manner with material based strategies can be a more potent solution to control bacterial infections. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 105B: 2174-2190, 2017.

show abstract

In vitro biocompatiblity of modified polycarbonate as a biomaterial

Cited by 12 publications

References 30 publications

Etching and Post‐Treatment Surface Stability of Track‐Etched Polycarbonate Membranes by Plasma Processing Using Various Related Oxidizing Plasma Systems

Etching and Post‐Treatment Surface Stability of Track‐Etched Polycarbonate Membranes by Plasma Processing Using Various Related Oxidizing Plasma Systems

Influence of polymerized siloxane coating on growth and biofilm formation of aerobic grown nosocomial bacteria

Engineered biomaterial and biophysical stimulation as combinatorial strategies to address prosthetic infection by pathogenic bacteria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About