4.5 Article

Interactions among osteoblastic cells, Staphylococcus aureus, and chitosan-immobilized titanium implants in a postoperative coculture system: An in vitro study

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.35597

关键词

bacteria-related infection (BRI); postoperative; sensitivity; osteogenic; antifouling

资金

  1. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health [R21AR065625]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biomaterial-related infections (BRIs) have become a major challenge in the field of orthopedic implants. In this study, we delved into the problem of BRI and attempted to reduce the possibility of BRI incidence via surface modification of titanium (Ti) with chitosan (SA-CS-Ti). To comprehensively evaluate the anti-infection potential of SA-CS-Ti, we first constructed a postoperative infection (POI) model with varying concentrations of bacteria (10(2)CFU/sample and 10(4)CFU/sample) and a constant number of SaOS-2 cells (10(5)/sample). Then, we biologically characterized the interactions between the SaOS-2 cells, bacteria, and different Ti implants using the POI model. The results from the osteoblastic cell and bacterial attachment tests demonstrated that the SA-CS-Ti surfaces exhibit superior osteogenic behavior relative to other Ti surfaces studied while showing significant anti-infective activities in the POI model with a low infection ratio (bacteria: cell ratio of 0.001:1) 30min after infection. Additionally, the SA-CS-Ti surfaces showed significantly reduced (p<0.05) bacteria proliferation compared to the control Ti surfaces (UN-Ti), demonstrating their antifouling property. The significantly increased (p<0.05) sensitivity of Staphylococcus. aureus adhered to the SA-CS-Ti surfaces against cefazolin (1mg/L treatment) and gentamicin (10mg/L and 100mg/L treatment) in the coculture system augmented potential of SA-CS-Ti to be used as orthopedic implants. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 104A: 586-594, 2016.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据