4.5 Article

Biofilm formation on nanostructured hydroxyapatite- coated titanium

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
Volume 102, Issue 4, Pages 1063-1070

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.34757

Keywords

implant; hydroxyapatite; nanomorphology; Staphylococcus epidermidis; biofilm

Funding

  1. Nordic Institute of Dental Materials (NIOM as)
  2. Centre for Environment and Sustainability in Gothenburg, GMV, Sweden

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Biofilm formation on medical devices is a common cause of implant failure, especially regarding implants that breach the epithelial tissue, so-called transcutaneous implants. Nanotechnology and the development of new nanomaterials have given the opportunity to design nanotextured implant surfaces. Such surfaces have been studied using various in vitro methods showing that nanosized features strongly benefit bone cell growth. However, little is known on how nanostructured features affect biofilm formation. The aim of this study was therefore to examine the shape- and chemical-dependent effect of a nanostructured hydroxyapatite (HA) coating on the degree of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm formation. Three different types of nanosized HA particles having different shapes and calcium to phosphate ratios were compared to uncoated turned titanium using safranin stain in a biofilm assay and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) for assessment of biofilm biomass and bacterial volume, respectively. No difference in biofilm biomass was detected for the various surfaces after 6 h incubation with S. epidermidis. Additionally, image analysis of CLSM Z-stacks confirmed the biofilm assay and showed similar results. In conclusion, the difference in nanomorphology and chemical composition of the surface coatings did not influence the adhesion and biofilm formation of S. epidermidis. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 102A: 1063-1070, 2014.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available