No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 21, 2026.

Antibacterial Surface Treatment for Orthopaedic Implants

Jiri Gallo, Martin Holinka, Calin Moucha

International Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2014 · Review · CC BY

Abstract

It is expected that the projected increased usage of implantable devices in medicine will result in a natural rise in the number of infections related to these cases. Some patients are unable to autonomously prevent formation of biofilm on implant surfaces. Suppression of the local peri-implant immune response is an important contributory factor. Substantial avascular scar tissue encountered during revision joint replacement surgery places these cases at an especially high risk of periprosthetic joint infection. A critical pathogenic event in the process of biofilm formation is bacterial adhesion. Prevention of biomaterial-associated infections should be concurrently focused on at least two targets: inhibition of biofilm formation and minimizing local immune response suppression. Current knowledge of antimicrobial surface treatments suitable for prevention of prosthetic joint infection is reviewed. Several surface treatment modalities have been proposed. Minimizing bacterial adhesion, biofilm formation inhibition, and bactericidal approaches are discussed. The ultimate anti-infective surface should be “smart” and responsive to even the lowest bacterial load. While research in this field is promising, there appears to be a great discrepancy between proposed and clinically implemented strategies, and there is urgent need for translational science focusing on this topic.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 21, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

1. Introduction

1Biomaterial-associated infection is a disastrous complication of modern orthopaedic surgery that often leads to prolonged patient pain and functional losses. While international efforts to minimize the risk of these infections are underway, orthopaedic surgical site infections (SSIs) continue to occur in staggering numbers. Current estimates suggest that up to 2.5% of primary hip and knee arthroplasties and up to 20% of revision arthroplasties are complicated by periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). According to some authors not only are these numbers underestimates but they are also on the rise. Staphylococcus aureus is the leading cause of both the SSIs and PJIs, and the prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) SSI and PJI is increasing, especially in the United States. Generally, deep infection leads to implant removal and ensuing increased morbidity and even mortality. Moreover, therapy of PJI is associated with enormous costs.

2Although methods developed for perioperative infection prevention such as antibiotic prophylaxis have been shown to be effective in SSI reduction, most assume a uniform intraoperative environment. As the majority of operating rooms are contaminated within the first few hours of service, most surgeries are not performed in a bacterial-free environment. Within a certain operating room all patients are exposed to the same environment. The question therefore arises as to why some patients go on to have infections and others do not. This question has recently been re-examined; it is still premature, however, to give strict recommendations for clinical practice. Even though modifiable SSI risk factors have been identified and well-described it is not often possible to avoid operating on patients who are not “optimized”.

3Several recent scientific forums have recommended that researchers should focus on the development of effective antibacterial surfaces that prevent bacterial adhesion, colonisation and proliferation into the surrounding tissues. The aim of this review is to summarize current knowledge in this field with particular emphasis on technologies that could be suitable for prevention of PJI in total joint arthroplasty. Similar technologies could be employed for prevention of SSIs in other orthopaedic cases involving implants such as plates, intramedullary nails, and external fixators.

1.1. How to Win the Race for the Surface?

4Gristina proposed the concept of a “race for the surface” whereby host and bacterial cells compete in determining the ultimate fate of the implant. Accordingly, when host cells colonize the implant surface first the probability of attachment of bacterial cells is very low and vice versa. This concept has stimulated technological and biomaterial progress while emphasizing the role of implant biocompatibility and tissue-integration. This model, however, can be criticized for its simplicity (simple rules, assumptions etc.), static conditions, and low capacity for prediction of PJI (inability to help with quantification of clinical uncertainty). Specifically, it is not able to interpret a wide zone often found between basic polar items, i.e., complete host cell versus bacterial cell coverage of an implant surface.

5The most destabilizing factor is the basic yet highly successful survival strategy of bacteria in general: their ability to adhere and survive on virtually all natural and synthetic surfaces. Bacterial cell membranes contain various types of adhesins for a wide range of biomaterial surface receptor sites. Environmental and surface characteristics of a biomaterial such as surface roughness, hydrophobicity, and electrostatic charge play only conditional roles. A reservoir of receptors for bacterial adhesive ligands mediating adhesion of free-floating bacteria to the surface of the biomaterial offers a conditional protein film covering an implant immediately after its placement into the host body. Complement and albumin are considered the main components of this conditional protein film. However, the protein spectrum extends much beyond complement and albumin and depends at least in part on a particular type of biomaterial attracting an exact set of host proteins and lipids. Conceptually, the process of bacterial adhesion can be divided into two basic phases: reversible and irreversible (Figure 1). The former is mechanically and biologically less stable than the latter. The explanation lies in part on the origin of nonspecific interactions between implant surface characteristics and bacterial surface adhesins. The second phase is mediated by molecular and cellular interactions closely associated with expression of biofilm specific gene clusters in reversibly attached bacteria. At least four distinct classes of surface proteins have been identified to participate on firm adhesion of S. aureus micro-colonies to a biomaterial and to each other. An adhesion phase is followed by gene expression for secretion of protective slime. This process makes bacteria extremely resistant to both host immune system and antibiotic diffusion. The transition between reversible and irreversible phases of biofilm formation coupled with phenotypical change is the last window of opportunity for clinically reasonable preventative measures.

6On the host site, the details of tissue integration of a biomaterial are still poorly understood. It is believed that host cells attached to implant fixation surfaces orchestrate the processes leading to periprosthetic bone regeneration and remodelling that protect against bacterial colonization. However, neither osseointegration nor fibrous tissue encapsulation of large non-fixation parts of an implant can eliminate long-term survivorship of bacterial micro-colonies. Moreover, peri-implant fibrous barriers can prevent contact between host immunity sentinel cells and bacterial molecules. This interaction is critical for host immune responses dependent on recognition of bacterial pattern-recognition receptors (PRRs; also microbe associated molecular patterns = MAMPs). This cascade goes on to intracellular signal transduction by first-line cell adaptors that organize the appropriate host response via particular modules of innate and adaptive immunity. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that implantation of a medical device impairs innate local host response and may facilitate the development of PJI. As a result, there is a strong need for intrinsic implant surface antibacterial functionality that can overcome implant-induced defects in the local immune response. This is of utmost importance especially in patients with underlying compromised immunity and in those undergoing revision surgery.

1.2. Brief Overview of Basic Concepts of PJI Prevention

7Strategies relying on decreased bacterial load and creating bacteria-free environment around an implant during the perioperative period are widely implemented in clinical practice. There is sufficient evidence supporting systemic and in some cases local antibiotic prophylaxis. Attempts at formulating evidence-based standards for good clinical and logistic practice in orthopaedic operating rooms have been utilized. Finally, while there is certainly room for improvement, educational programs aimed at educating orthopaedic surgeons (the entire staff) in perioperative strategies of PJI prevention are under way.

1.3. Indications for Implants with Antibacterial Surface Treatment

8An important consideration in designing implants with antibacterial coating relates to the characterization of reasonable and justifiable cost. Theoretically all patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty are at risk for PJI. Revision cases carry an increased risk in part due to the suboptimal local tissue environment. Moreover, several studies emphasize that the risk of PJI across the board in orthopaedic surgery is on the rise. As a result, one could argue that all patients should benefit from implants coated with a proven anti-infective surface. On the other hand, the risk for PJI is not homogenously distributed among the arthroplasty patients: it is stratified into the specific groups. Therefore, it might be convincing to implant “biofilm resistant” prostheses only in patients at increased risk of PJI. A validated tool for screening patients for increased risk of PJI does not currently exist. Despite attempts to identify and stratify patients at risk of PJI specific clinical algorithms are not routinely used. In addition, we have no data relevant for determining the potential costs associated with wide range usage of such a screening strategy. Taken together, the preventative strategy involving all patients undergoing primary and revision total joint arthroplasty seems to be more justifiable than a more restrictive approach targeting high risk patients. However, prior to implementation of such devices, it is necessary to demonstrate the significant reduction of PJI in a well-done population-based cost-benefit analysis.

1.4. Rules for Construction of Implants with Anti-Infective Coating

9A wide spectrum of substances and technological approaches has been proposed and tested for antibacterial features (Table 1). In order to fully discuss and evaluate surface treatment technologies it is essential to review strict criteria related generally to the process of innovation in this field. These are as follows: (i) biocompatibility (the ability of a material to perform with an appropriate host response in a specific applications); (ii) strong evidence of anti-infective efficiency (the anti-bacterial efficiency should be demonstrated in vitro, in vivo and also in an appropriate model of PJI); (iii) fixation properties cannot be compromised (the antibacterial coating must not compromise long-term stable implant osseointegration or cement fixation); (iv) durability of the anti-infective effect (while clear recommendations are lacking epidemiological viewpoints suggest that at least two years would be appreciated); (v) mechanical characteristics of the antibacterial coating (resistance to mechanical stresses and strains either during surgery or postoperatively).

1.5. General Principles of Thin Surface Modifications

10A change in the surface chemistry and/or structure of the bulk implant can be achieved either by chemically or physically altering the surface layer in the existing biomaterial (e.g., oxidation or mechanical modifications like roughening/polishing/texturing). A different method involves over-coating the existing surface with a new thin layer of material having a different composition (e.g., hydroxyapatite coating on titanium alloys, antibiotics bound covalently to the substrate, fixation of other antimicrobial compounds). In terms of durability, we can distinguish between degradable and non-degradable biomaterials.

1.6. Remarks on the Testing of Antibacterial Coatings

11A critical step in progress lies in the demonstration that newly developed biomaterials possess antibacterial efficacy. To date there is no widely accepted methodology available that could precisely and reproducibly demonstrate antibacterial behaviour of the proposed anti-infective technologies. Major criticisms lie around static “closed” testing system whereas in vivo the implant has to face a dynamic, continuously changing, mechanically unstable and predominantly fluid environment. As a result, the majority of studies to date have used inappropriate and insufficient protocols.

12Controllable, standardized testing conditions that closely mimic the human in vivo environment are needed in order to overcome the aforementioned issues. PJIs develop at low shear conditions and under multidirectional low-pressure fluid flow. A variety of testing tools have been proposed that attempt to simulate conditions of continuous or intermittent fluid-displacement in both low and high shear conditions. Protocols for cultivation of particular species (multispecies) biofilms at controllable, constant and reproducible conditions have also been described. Finally, representative in vitro and in vivo models for each particular clinical situation (i.e., total joint arthroplasty, internal, external fixation) should be further developed and appropriately validated. Given the large variability of antibacterial strategies it is likely that testing methods must be better tailored to match the specific proposed strategy at hand.

2. Basic Concepts of Antibacterial Coating

13A number of principles from basic research have been proposed for translation into technologies potentially suitable for antibacterial treatment of orthopaedic implants. It is currently easy to distinguish between technologies offering anti-adhesive properties, those working as antimicrobial agents, and those combining above-mentioned approaches. Anti-infective surfaces can be classified as “contact killing” and antimicrobial agent eluting. Coatings can also be degradable and non-degradable. In terms of functionality, one may choose to divide surfaces into mono-functional and multi-functional. The latter are expected to target multiple biological tasks simultaneously (Figure 2). A “smart surface” is a completely different methodology designed to be a self-responsive multitask micro-machine that releases antimicrobial (and other) substances after stimulation by microbiological (or other) signals.

2.1. Anti-Adhesive Approaches

14Engineers believe they are able to treat biomaterial surfaces in this manner and that this will prevent the critical step of bacterial biofilm formation. As a result, such a strategy could potentially target infections related to perioperative contamination of prosthetic surfaces. Some authors believe that hydrophilic, highly hydrated, and non-charged surfaces could be a good choice. These surfaces have been shown in vitro to prevent many bacterial species from biomaterial adhesion by limiting the contact between bacterium and potential surface placement sites. Host cells attachment, however, may also be negatively affected by certain surface treatments. While such strategies cannot be used in the setting of implants requiring bony ingrowth (such as fixation surfaces in cementless arthroplasty implants) they may be appropriate for non-fixation surfaces (plates, screws, or intramedullary nails). In addition, it should be mentioned that the basic concept favouring the hydrophilic over the hydrophobic forces might be criticised from both the bio-physicochemical misunderstanding of these terms and the complexity of biological interactions around an implant. As a result, much more attention has been focused recently on hydrophobic and superhydrophobic surface treatment technologies and their repellent antibacterial effects.

15Treating protein-surfaces and/or protein-bacteria interactions may be a good strategy of inhibiting bacterial adhesion to a specific biomaterial. Proteins such as albumin, fibronectin, fibrinogen, laminin, denatured collagens, and some plasma/tissue lipids are the first host substances that interact with the surface structure of the biomaterial. Reduction of conditional lipid-protein layer formation can be achieved by changing surface physico-chemical characteristics, and/or surface micro-morphology. In fact, a number of studies have demonstrated that the biological response to biomaterials can be controlled via alterations in surface chemistry and structure. For instance it has been suggested that implants with rough and porous surface structure are prone to greater bacterial adhesion in comparison to smooth surfaces. This is perhaps due to much larger surface area available for adhesion and subsequent higher number of anchor points. Porous cementless implants have much larger surface available for bacterial adhesion; some studies report their usage is associated with increased risk of infection as compared to cemented ones. However, other investigators found similar risk for infection in relation to the type of total hip arthroplasty fixation. This could point paradoxically to the complexity of the clinical situation where a myriad of factors participate in PJI pathogenesis and surface roughness is only one of many, implant related characteristics. At the nanometre scale, bacterial adhesion does not simply follow the roughness of the surface but also is dependent on other variables like the quantity of adsorbed proteins. When roughness increases, the formation of a thick protein layer on such implant surface could suppress bacteria adhesion. In addition, the adhesion process can be different among the materials with different surface structure in terms of short-range van der Waals interactions and surface energy (Figure 3),.

16To date a number of anti-adhesive tactics have been proposed for different purposes. Only a few, however, have met the elementary features required for bone implant usage. Friedman et al. using a rabbit model, demonstrated reduced bacterial adherence on pure titanium samples and decreased infection rates of implants coated with cross-linked albumin. Surprisingly, this model has not been further pursued. More recent strategies include production of self-assembled mono- or multilayers, surface grafting, or hydrogels. Importantly, the level of anti-adhesive properties has to respect the purpose of a particular type of orthopaedic implant surface (i.e., whether surfaces are intended for total joint arthroplasty, internal fixation, external fixators). Specifically, a strong anti-adhesive layer cannot be used for coating of fixation surfaces of total joint arthroplasty because it could also prevent host bone osseointegration and lead to early mechanical failure. The solution lies in a coating technology that retains required host cell interactions while selectively inhibiting bacterial adhesion.. It was found that specific changes of a surface morphology at the micro- and nanometre scales might influence not only the bacterial adhesion but also biofilm phenotype conversion. As a result, nanopatterning and other surface treatment nanotechnologies can offer new opportunities for development of effective anti-adhesive treatment in orthopaedic implants.

17Taken together, anti-adhesive technologies offer attractive opportunities for engineers and collaborating researchers to develop a prosthetic surface that should ultimately diminish PJI rates. This approach does however have some important limitations. Cementless arthroplasty implants that require host bone integration may not be amenable to such coatings. The process of unifying ongrowth or ingrowth with antibacterial anti-adhesive functionality as part of a surface coating is technically demanding and has not been fully elucidated. Another challenge of designing antiadhesive technologies relates to the current inability to design a universal surface treatment that can be applied to all surfaces, all bacterial species, and under all (ingrowth and noningrowth) implants.

2.2. Surfaces with Intrinsically Antibacterial Properties

18Historically, two main strategies have been proposed for effective antibacterial surface treatment either “contact killing” or drug eluting. The majority of them are not suitable for surface treatment of orthopaedic implants due to problems with cytotoxicity, immunoreactivity, and genotoxicity. In killing bacteria they rely on diverse mechanisms of action, which may interfere with a cell respiration, cell division, or formation of a cell wall (Figure 4). Another very promising approach involves interference of the bacterial signalling network (e.g., quorum sensing) or inhibition of the transition of planktonic phenotype of bacteria into a sessile type. This tactic could prolong the window of opportunity for both prophylactic antibiotic activity and the host immune response.

19Antibacterial surface technologies can employ metals (silver, zinc, copper, zirconium etc.), non-metal elements (e.g., selenium), organic substances (antibiotics, anti-infective peptides, chitosan, other substances), and their combinations.

2.2.1. Coating of Implant Surface by Anti-Infective Metals

20Antibacterial activity of the majority of metal coatings is closely linked to the ionic or nano form rather than to the bulk material. Despite extensive research, routine coating of implants with such a thin layer of metal is still not the standard. The main obstacles preventing broader usage of such technologies are cytotoxicity and resultant decreased biocompatibility. In addition, creating a coating-substrate interface robust enough to sustain the mechanical stresses involved in surgical implant insertion and ultimate loading once in vivo remains a challenge. Lastly, the risk of bacterial resistance to metallic coatings, a phenomenon common to all antibacterial strategies, remains a concern.

21Silver is the most prevalent metal used in biomedical applications. Dissolved silver cations are biochemically active agents that interfere with bacterial cell membrane permeability and cellular metabolism. Silver also contributes to formation of reactive oxygen species and other mechanisms that potentially influence prokaryotic cells. There has been concern, however, about the toxicity of silver ions. Even in minute levels silver can adversely affect surrounding cells and lead to potentially harmful accumulation in distant locations. Research efforts have focused on the development of silver coating technologies that reduce or even eliminate toxicity while maintaining constructive antibacterial effects. Panacek et al. showed that ionic silver inhibited the growth of the Candida albicans at concentrations comparable to levels (approximately 1 mg/L) that were cytotoxic against human fibroblasts. In contrast, silver nanoparticles (see Section 2.2.4.) effectively inhibited the growth of the tested yeasts at concentrations below the cytotoxic limit against human fibroblasts (30 mg/L).

22Copper and zinc are trace metals involved in multiple enzymatic and cellular processes. These metals also have potent antibacterial effects on a wide spectrum of bacterial species. The ability of bacteria to survive around copper compounds depends on the expression of copper tolerance genes. The same pathways are required for certain bacterial species to survive innate immune attacks. Potential toxic side effects of these metals remain a strong concern. Potential solutions may incorporate copper- and zinc-based nanomaterials or, alternatively, more controlled release of these metals in conjunction with other surface infection control strategies.

23Cobalt-chrome and titanium alloys are the most commonly used materials in total joint arthroplasty implants. Several technologies have been proposed to expand the antibacterial properties of these implants. Functionalization of biomaterial surfaces with silver and copper ions is one such method. The anti-infective potential of titanium dioxide layers has also been widely investigated both alone or in combination with other substances. This concept has been tested in external fixator pins that are particularly prone to infection. In one study, silver coated pins were compared to uncoated ones. While the rate of bacterial colonization was slightly lower in the silver coated pins, the differences were not significant. More importantly, the patients with silver coated pins exhibited a significant increase in serum silver levels and the study required termination. Great expectations are associated with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants. These implants could become immune to bacterial colonization by employing the chelate-bonding ability of inositol phosphate to immobilize silver ions on the hydroxyapatite film of the PEEK substrate. Such implants are not currently available in the joint arthroplasty field.

2.2.2. Non-Metal Elements with Antibacterial Properties for Implant Surface Treatment

24Non-metal elements like hydrogen, chlorine, iodine, or oxygen are commonly used in biomedicine for their anti-infective properties. They have been rarely indicated as antibacterial coating technologies in orthopaedic implants due to their general softness and brittleness. Selenium bound covalently onto the surface of titanium or titanium alloy implant discs have been shown to prevent Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis attachment without affecting osteoblast viability. Selenium catalyzes the formation of superoxide radicals and subsequently inhibits bacterial adhesion and viability. In addition, selenium nanoparticles can inhibit bacterial growth and biofilm formation. Ongoing research is needed to determine the clinical applicability of carbon substances like graphene or carbon nanotubes that can be synthesized in multifunctional layers.

2.2.3. Antibacterial Coatings of Organic Origin

25A large number of studies have investigated the efficacy of surfaces coated with covalently linked antibiotics (Figure 5),. Clinical effectiveness of such implants is most likely limited to infections caused by bacteria that are sensitive to the specific antibiotic that has been coupled. In addition, strong forces such as covalent binding are insufficiently sensitive to react to weak external stimuli. To overcome these issues, combinations of antibiotics with other compounds have been proposed either alone or in association with a particular mechanism of controlled release.

26A promising new approach for prevention of implant-related infection involves coating implants with antimicrobial peptides, cytokines or other molecules critical for host response to bacteria invasion. This heterogeneous group of substances has proven experimentally their efficacy against a wide range of pathogens. They employ a number of mechanisms, pathways, and targets that participate in implant bacterial invasion including those related to local deficiency in immune response induced by surgical approach or the implant insertion method itself. Antimicrobial peptides, like antibiotics, function via damage of the cell wall and inhibition of key bacterial protein synthesis. In addition, they exert influence upon inflammation, tissue healing, and apoptotic events. Notably, resistance to antimicrobial peptides has been reported less frequently than to antibiotics. Initial experiments demonstrated that a thin layer of antimicrobial peptides affixed onto the surfaces of orthopaedic (dental) metal alloys exhibit excellent antibacterial effects against typical pathogens related to PJI. In addition, it has been demonstrated in a rat model that an interleukin-12 nanocoating substantially decreased infection rates. Other immunomodulatory proteins such as chemokines can also exhibit antimicrobial activities. The possibility of multifunctional layers (targeting both the tissues homeostasis maintenance and infection) may become reality.

27Recently, molecules and compounds that interfere with the expression of various bacterial phenotypes have shown great promise. In the field of PJIs, weapons aimed at Staphylococcal bacteria are the most valuable. In this line, the autoinducer two (AI2) signaling peptides, RNAIII-inhibiting peptide (RIP), or dihydropyrrolones might be potential candidates for total joint arthroplasty surface treatment. A very promising set of new molecules called biofilm disruptors has been discovered recently. They might not only protect an implant surface from biofilm formation but also disrupt existing biofilms. However, in contrast to local delivery of antibiotics, the optimal doses and surface pharmacokinetics of above-mentioned substances need to be determined. To our knowledge, we are not aware of any orthopaedic experimental models that test these aforementioned technologies.

28Chitosan (CS) is a polycationic polymer derived from chitin that exhibits antibacterial and antifungal activity. The exact mechanism of action remains poorly understood. Some studies found that macrophages are more effective when working on chitosan surface. Derivatives of CS have recently been widely studied in relation to antibacterial usage in biomedicine. One such compound, quaternized CS, has shown strong antibacterial activity against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. The mechanism of action involves bacterial surface adhesion deterrence as well as inhibition of transcription factors required for production of extracellular matrix. There is some evidence that CS derivatives can be firmly anchored to titanium alloys and that they have a protective effect against some bacterial species either alone or in combination with other antimicrobial substances like antibiotics or antimicrobial peptides. CS derivatives secured to external fixator pins have been studied as a method of preventing pin tract infections. However, we are not aware a study to date reporting data from clinical setting. Several studies also investigated the potential of CS derivatives in the form of nanoparticles to protect bone cement (polymethylmethacrylate) against bacterial colonization and biofilm formation.

2.2.4. Nanostructured Surfaces and Coatings

29Nanostructured surfaces and coatings (either inorganic or organic origin) are currently of great interest. Consequently, nanoscale surface patterning methods have been applied to fabricate different nanopatterns (e.g., ordered stripes, pits, pillars or squares). Several studies have demonstrated that nanopatterning in conjunction with other surface treatment could inhibit bacterial adhesion.

30Another example of nanotechnology application is fabrication of polymers containing antibacterial nanoparticles and substances that inhibit both the quiescent and sessile bacteria. Synthetic polymers, natural polymers, and their derivatives (e.g., gelatin, chitosan) have potential to be used as implant surface scaffolds and delivery vehicles of antibacterial agents.

31The antibacterial effect of silver nanoparticles (NP) is not fully understood to date. It might be based on the release of silver cations from nanostructured surfaces (Figure 6). These cations permanently disrupt bacterial cell wall, inactivate essential proteins, cause DNA condensation, and lead to reacting oxygen species generation. The antibacterial activity of the silver NPs is dependent on both size and shape. Differences in the mechanism of action of diverse forms of silver may explain why to date there have been no reports of resistance to this type of antibacterial treatment. As compared to non-nanoscale silver applications, a nanoscale form offers simultaneously greater solubility, chemical reactivity, and strong antibacterial activity even at low concentrations (units of milligrams per liter),. Silver NPs have been shown to cover a wide spectrum of causative bacteria. Moreover, in vitro and in vivo experiments have shown long-lasting antibacterial protective effects of nanostructured titanium coating incorporated with silver NPs. Intense research is being done to combine both the antibacterial effect of silver NP with osteointegrative properties and improved biocompatibility of materials such as titanium alloys. Lastly, nanoparticles of selenium, copper, zinc, and other elements have also demonstrated strong antibacterial efficacy.

32Taken together, nanotreatment of biomaterial surfaces offers new opportunities for periprosthetic joint infection prevention. Early studies have shown high biocompatibility of such approaches and therefore great potential for use in surface treatment of orthopaedic implants. It should be cautioned, however, that nanotechnologies can also induce unintended inflammatory responses related to activation of dendritic cells and macrophages. Concern also exists about the mechanical properties of implant nanocoatings since damage may occur during surgical implantation, especially in cementless implants inserted via press-fit methods. Methods describing the nanosilver coating of medical device in orthopaedics and traumatology have been patented in both the United States and in the European Union. Implants covered by a nanosilver coating are not currently available in clinical practice. At least two manufacturers in Germany, however, already produce on request total joint arthroplasties treated by a galvanic deposition of elementary silver. Initial clinical experiences with these “custom made” implants are promising.

3. Multifunctional and Smart Coatings

33Multifunctional surface layers have been developed in an effort to coalesce the need for implants possessing anti-infective properties (see Section 1.4.) with much needed maintenance of perioperative tissue homeostasis. Along these lines a functional polymer brush coating has been proposed. This model is composed of an anti-adhesive molecule that repels bacteria, an antimicrobial peptide that kills bacterial upon contact, and a substance containing arginine-glycine-aspartate that enhances tissue integration. Several other technologies for multifunctional surfaces have been proposed and tested. Because none of these coating methods can address all criteria defined for anti-infective surface treatment of medical devices intended for long-term usage in orthopaedic surgery (see part 1.4) it has been difficult to implement experimental and preclinical studies.

34Development of multifunctional, self-responsive, and self-repairing biomaterials is becoming one of the most intense areas of anti-infective translational research. “Smart coatings” are designed to be sensitive and responsive to a variety of stimuli such as bacteria. It is anticipated that these coatings respond intelligently to signaling based on how they are prepared (Figure 7). Accordingly, smart coatings should possess synergistic passive and active functionalities (e.g., anticorrosive, homeostatic, antiosteoclastic, antibacterial, antifungal). Some of the challenges encountered during development of these smart coatings have included: survivorship during the implant-coating manufacturing process, non-adverse reactions to the smart coatings themselves in vivo, mechanical resistance, and preservation of intended functionalities throughout the life of the device.

35A critical component of a smart micro-device is a sensor unit sensitive enough to detect even the most minute microbial-associated signals. Development of nanocontainers with sensitive shells, high loading capacity, and good affinity for the coating matrix has also been challenging. Nanocontainer shell entryway signals include pH, temperature, as well as mechanical, chemical, and electrical (electrochemical) changes in the peri-implant effective space. Stimulation should lead to opening of the nanocontainers and release of specific substance(s).

4. Translation of Anti-Infective Coatings into the Clinical Practice

36Examination of global grants and published studies on this topic suggests a striking discrepancy between proposed strategies of antibacterial surface treatment and ultimate completion of in vitro and in vivo experimentation. In fact, we believe that very little progress has actually been made in the translation of the aforementioned modalities into clinically useful technologies. Barriers to translational medicine in this arena are most likely related to economic, medicolegal, and biotechnological issues. Concerns about the long-term durability of such new implants as compared to traditional implants are also realistic. Leaders in this field have recently proposed that in order for some of these obstacles to be overcome we must improve efficiency and effectiveness amongst all partners involved. Only by improving collaborative efforts amongst governments, regulatory agencies, industry leaders and health care payers will patients benefit from these technologies. While pressures exist worldwide to diminish the incidence of PJIs, surprisingly there is not a single large clinical study examining the role of broad-range implementation of implants containing antibacterial surface treatments.

5. Conclusions

37There is no doubt that prevention is the best response to the growing problem of orthopaedic implant infections. Research in the field of antibacterial surface treatment has demonstrated in vitro and in vivo effectiveness of several potentially promising technologies. Some interfere with bacterial adhesion and with the initial phases of the biofilm formation. Others exhibit direct antibacterial properties. Strategies incorporating nanopatterning and other nanotechnologies have also shown great promise. In the future, multifunctional smart surfaces could open new avenues for prevention of bacterial attachment while simultaneously enhancing healing and restoration of tissue homeostasis. Issues related to the mechanical properties of these technologies and the potential for detrimental side effects such as toxicity and interference with osseointegration require further investigation. It is of utmost importance to realize, however, that some of the aforementioned technologies have already shown strong enough evidence of antibacterial efficacy, safety, and endurance. The time is here for more efficient development and testing of these technologies in the clinical setting.

References 261

1.
Cats-Baril W., Gehrke T., Huff K., Kendoff D., Maltenfort M., Parvizi J. International consensus on periprosthetic joint infection: Description of the consensus process. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2013;471:4065-4075.
Not in our library10.1007/s11999-013-3329-4
2.
Lentino J.R. Prosthetic joint infections: Bane of orthopedists, challenge for infectious disease specialists. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2003;36:1157-1161.
Not in our library10.1086/374554
3.
Increasing risk of revision due to deep infection after hip arthroplasty · 2009
No notice
4.
Aggarwal V.K., Bakhshi H., Ecker N.U., Parvizi J., Gehrke T., Kendoff D. Organism profile in periprosthetic joint infection: Pathogens differ at two arthroplasty infection referral centers in Europe and in the United States. J. Knee Surg. 2014;10.
Not in our library10.1055/s-0033-1364102
5.
Zmistowski B., Karam J.A., Durinka J.B., Casper D.S., Parvizi J. Periprosthetic joint infection increases the risk of one-year mortality. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2013;95:2177-2184.
Not in our library10.2106/jbjs.l.00789
6.
Kurtz S.M., Lau E., Watson H., Schmier J.K., Parvizi J. Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J. Arthroplast. 2012;27:61-65.
Not in our library10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.022
7.
Illingworth K.D., Mihalko W.M., Parvizi J., Sculco T., McArthur B., el Bitar Y., Saleh K.J. How to minimize infection and thereby maximize patient outcomes in total joint arthroplasty: A multicenter approach: AAOS exhibit selection. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2013;95:e50.
Not in our library10.2106/jbjs.l.00596
8.
An Y.H., Friedman R.J. Prevention of sepsis in total joint arthroplasty. J. Hosp. Infect. 1996;33:93-108.
Not in our library10.1016/s0195-6701(96)90094-8
9.
Humphreys H. Surgical site infection, ultraclean ventilated operating theatres and prosthetic joint surgery: Where now? J. Hosp. Infect. 2012;81:71-72.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jhin.2012.03.007
10.
Zhang S.Y., Herman M., Ciancanelli M.J., de Diego P.R., Sancho-Shimizu V., Abel L., Casanova J.L. TLR3 immunity to infection in mice and humans. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2013;25:19-33.
Not in our library10.1016/j.coi.2012.11.001
11.
Ziakas P.D., Prodromou M.L., el Khoury J., Zintzaras E., Mylonakis E. The role of TLR4 896 A>G and 1196 C>T in susceptibility to infections: A review and meta-analysis of genetic association studies. PLoS One. 2013;8:e81047.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0081047
12.
Navratilova Z., Gallo J., Mrazek F., Lostak J., Petrek M. MBL2 gene variation affecting serum MBL is associated with prosthetic joint infection in Czech patients after total joint arthroplasty. Tissue Antigens. 2012;80:444-451.
Not in our library10.1111/tan.12001
13.
Malik M.H., Bayat A., Jury F., Kay P.R., Ollier W.E. Genetic susceptibility to total hip arthroplasty failure—Positive association with mannose-binding lectin. J. Arthroplast. 2007;22:265-270.
Not in our library10.1016/j.arth.2006.02.163
14.
Pruzansky J.S., Bronson M.J., Grelsamer R.P., Strauss E., Moucha C.S. Prevalence of modifiable surgical site infection risk factors in hip and knee joint arthroplasty patients at an urban academic hospital. J. Arthroplast. 2014;29:272-276.
Not in our library10.1016/j.arth.2013.06.019
15.
Aggarwal V.K., Tischler E.H., Lautenbach C., Williams G.R., Abboud J.A., Altena M., Bradbury T.L., Calhoun J.H., Dennis D.A., del Gaizo D.J., et al. Mitigation and education. J. Arthroplast. 2014;29:19-25.
Not in our library10.1016/j.arth.2013.09.028
16.
Gristina A.G., Naylor P., Myrvik Q. Infections from biomaterials and implants: A race for the surface. Med. Prog. Technol. 1988;14:205-224.
Not in our library
17.
How Do Bacteria Know They Are on a Surface and Regulate Their Response to an Adhering State? · 2012
No notice
18.
Costerton W., Veeh R., Shirtliff M., Pasmore M., Post C., Ehrlich G. The application of biofilm science to the study and control of chronic bacterial infections. J. Clin. Investig. 2003;112:1466-1477.
Not in our library10.1172/jci200320365
19.
Chen Y., Busscher H.J., van der Mei H.C., Norde W. Statistical analysis of long- and short-range forces involved in bacterial adhesion to substratum surfaces as measured using atomic force microscopy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011;77:5065-5070.
Not in our library10.1128/aem.00502-11
20.
Wang Y., Subbiahdoss G., de Vries J., Libera M., van der Mei H.C., Busscher H.J. Effect of adsorbed fibronectin on the differential adhesion of osteoblast-like cells and Staphylococcus aureus with and without fibronectin-binding proteins. Biofouling. 2012;28:1011-1021.
Not in our library10.1080/08927014.2012.725471
21.
Wagner C., Aytac S., Hansch G.M. Biofilm growth on implants: Bacteria prefer plasma coats. Int. J. Artif. Organs. 2011;34:811-817.
Not in our library10.5301/ijao.5000061
22.
Ribeiro M., Monteiro F.J., Ferraz M.P. Infection of orthopedic implants with emphasis on bacterial adhesion process and techniques used in studying bacterial-material interactions. Biomatter. 2012;2:176-194.
Not in our library10.4161/biom.22905
23.
Proteinaceous determinants of surface colonization in bacteria: bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation from a protein secretion perspective · 2013
No notice
24.
Jenney C.R., Anderson J.M. Adsorbed serum proteins responsible for surface dependent human macrophage behavior. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2000;49:435-447.
Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(20000315)49:4<435::aid-jbm2>3.0.co;2-y
25.
Thevenot P., Hu W., Tang L. Surface chemistry influences implant biocompatibility. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2008;8:270-280.
Not in our library10.2174/156802608783790901
26.
Roach P., Eglin D., Rohde K., Perry C.C. Modern biomaterials: A review—Bulk properties and implications of surface modifications. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2007;18:1263-1277.
Not in our library10.1007/s10856-006-0064-3
27.
Wilson C.J., Clegg R.E., Leavesley D.I., Pearcy M.J. Mediation of biomaterial-cell interactions by adsorbed proteins: A review. Tissue Eng. 2005;11:1-18.
Not in our library10.1089/ten.2005.11.1
28.
Stoodley P., Ehrlich G.D., Sedghizadeh P.P., Hall-Stoodley L., Baratz M.E., Altman D.T., Sotereanos N.G. Orthopaedic biofilm infections. Curr. Orthop. Pract. 2011;22:558-563.
Not in our library10.1097/bco.0b013e318230efcf
29.
Costerton J.W., Stewart P.S., Greenberg E.P. Bacterial biofilms: A common cause of persistent infections. Science. 1999;284:1318-1322.
Not in our library10.1126/science.284.5418.1318
30.
Laverty G., Gorman S.P., Gilmore B.F. Biomolecular mechanisms of staphylococcal biofilm formation. Future Microbiol. 2013;8:509-524.
Not in our library10.2217/fmb.13.7
31.
Foster T.J., Geoghegan J.A., Ganesh V.K., Hook M. Adhesion, invasion and evasion: The many functions of the surface proteins of Staphylococcus aureus. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2014;12:49-62.
Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro3161
32.
Fux C.A., Costerton J.W., Stewart P.S., Stoodley P. Survival strategies of infectious biofilms. Trends Microbiol. 2005;13:34-40.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tim.2004.11.010
33.
Anderson J.M., Rodriguez A., Chang D.T. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin. Immunol. 2008;20:86-100.
Not in our library10.1016/j.smim.2007.11.004
34.
Gardner A.B., Lee S.K., Woods E.C., Acharya A.P. Biomaterials-based modulation of the immune system. Biomed. Res. Int. 2013;2013.
Not in our library10.1155/2013/732182
35.
Harvey A.G., Hill E.W., Bayat A. Designing implant surface topography for improved biocompatibility. Expert Rev. Med. Devices. 2013;10:257-267.
Not in our library10.1586/erd.12.82
36.
Cohen H.C., Joyce E.J., Kao W.J. Biomaterials selectively modulate interactions between human blood-derived polymorphonuclear leukocytes and monocytes. Am. J. Pathol. 2013;182:2180-2190.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ajpath.2013.02.022
37.
Busscher H.J., van der Mei H.C., Subbiahdoss G., Jutte P.C., van den Dungen J.J., Zaat S.A., Schultz M.J., Grainger D.W. Biomaterial-associated infection: Locating the finish line in the race for the surface. Sci. Transl. Med. 2012;4:153rv10.
Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.3004528
38.
Nish S., Medzhitov R. Host defense pathways: Role of redundancy and compensation in infectious disease phenotypes. Immunity. 2011;34:629-636.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2011.05.009
39.
Zimmerli W., Lew P.D., Waldvogel F.A. Pathogenesis of foreign body infection. Evidence for a local granulocyte defect. J. Clin. Investig. 1984;73:1191-1200.
Not in our library10.1172/jci111305
40.
Higgins D.M., Basaraba R.J., Hohnbaum A.C., Lee E.J., Grainger D.W., Gonzalez-Juarrero M. Localized immunosuppressive environment in the foreign body response to implanted biomaterials. Am. J. Pathol. 2009;175:161-170.
Not in our library10.2353/ajpath.2009.080962
41.
Zimmerli W., Sendi P. Pathogenesis of implant-associated infection: The role of the host. Semin. Immunopathol. 2011;33:295-306.
Not in our library10.1007/s00281-011-0275-7
42.
Berbari E.F., Osmon D.R., Lahr B., Eckel-Passow J.E., Tsaras G., Hanssen A.D., Mabry T., Steckelberg J., Thompson R. The Mayo prosthetic joint infection risk score: Implication for surgicalsite infection reporting and risk stratification. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2012;33:774-781.
Not in our library10.1086/666641
43.
Engelsman A.F., Saldarriaga-Fernandez I.C., Nejadnik M.R., van Dam G.M., Francis K.P., Ploeg R.J., Busscher H.J., van der Mer H.C. The risk of biomaterial-associated infection after revision surgery due to an experimental primary implant infection. Biofouling. 2010;26:761-767.
Not in our library10.1080/08927014.2010.515027
44.
Gastmeier P., Breier A.C., Brandt C. Influence of laminar airflow on prosthetic joint infections: A systematic review. J. Hosp. Infect. 2012;81:73-78.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jhin.2012.04.008
45.
Merollini K.M., Zheng H., Graves N. Most relevant strategies for preventing surgical site infection after total hip arthroplasty: Guideline recommendations and expert opinion. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2013;41:221-226.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ajic.2012.03.027
46.
Can particulate air sampling predict microbial load in operating theatres for arthroplasty? · 2012
Not checked
47.
Breier A.C., Brandt C., Sohr D., Geffers C., Gastmeier P. Laminar airflow ceiling size: No impact on infection rates following hip and knee prosthesis. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2011;32:1097-1102.
Not in our library10.1086/662182
48.
Engesaeter L.B., Lie S.A., Espehaug B., Furnes O., Vollset S.E., Havelin L.I. Antibiotic prophylaxis in total hip arthroplasty: Effects of antibiotic prophylaxis systemically and in bone cement on the revision rate of 22,170 primary hip replacements followed 0–14 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. Scand. 2003;74:644-651.
Not in our library10.1080/00016470310018135
49.
Hawn M.T., Richman J.S., Vick C.C., Deierhoi R.J., Graham L.A., Henderson W.G., Itani K.M. Timing of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis and the risk of surgical site infection. JAMA Surg. 2013;148:649-657.
Not in our library10.1001/jamasurg.2013.134
50.
Wang J., Zhu C., Cheng T., Peng X., Zhang W., Qin H., Zhang X. A systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement use in primary total hip or knee arthroplasty. PLoS One. 2013;8:e82745.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0082745
51.
Andersson A.E., Bergh I., Karlsson J., Eriksson B.I., Nilsson K. Traffic flow in the operating room: An explorative and descriptive study on air quality during orthopedic trauma implant surgery. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2012;40:750-755.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ajic.2011.09.015
52.
Clyburn T.A., Evans R.P., Moucha C.S., Prokuski L. Surgical site infection prevention: The operating room environment. Instr. Course Lect. 2011;60:565-574.
Not in our library
53.
Hester R.A., Nelson C.L., Harrison S. Control of contamination of the operative team in total joint arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 1992;7:267-269.
Not in our library10.1016/0883-5403(92)90047-t
54.
Hey J.D., Patel M.S. Prevention and cure? Or: Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? J. Health Econ. 1983;2:119-138.
Not in our library10.1016/0167-6296(83)90002-4
55.
Corvec S., Portillo M.E., Pasticci B.M., Borens O., Trampuz A. Epidemiology and new developments in the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. Int. J. Artif. Organs. 2012;35:923-934.
Not in our library10.5301/ijao.5000168
56.
Cataldo M.A., Petrosillo N., Cipriani M., Cauda R., Tacconelli E. Prosthetic joint infection: Recent developments in diagnosis and management. J. Infect. 2010;61:443-448.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jinf.2010.09.033
57.
Tsaras G., Osmon D.R., Mabry T., Lahr B., St Sauveur J., Yawn B., Kurland R., Berbari E.F. Incidence, secular trends, and outcomes of prosthetic joint infection: A population-based study, olmsted county, Minnesota, 1969–2007. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2012;33:1207-1212.
Not in our library10.1086/668421
58.
Dale H., Fenstad A.M., Hallan G., Havelin L.I., Furnes O., Overgaard S., Pedersen A.B., Kärrholm J., Garellick G., Pulkkinen P., et al. Increasing risk of prosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2012;83:449-458.
Not in our library10.3109/17453674.2012.733918
59.
Rasouli M.R., Maltenfort M.G., Purtill J.J., Hozack W.J., Parvizi J. Has the rate of in-hospital infections after total joint arthroplasty decreased? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2013;471:3102-3111.
Not in our library10.1007/s11999-013-2949-z
60.
Bozic K.J., Ward D.T., Lau E.C., Chan V., Wetters N.G., Naziri Q., Odum S., Fehring T.K., Mont M.A., Gioe T.J., et al. Risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection following primary total hip arthroplasty: A case control study. J. Arthroplast. 2014;29:154-156.
Not in our library10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.015
61.
Namba R.S., Inacio M.C., Paxton E.W. Risk factors associated with deep surgical site infections after primary total knee arthroplasty: An analysis of 56,216 knees. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2013;95:775-782.
Not in our library10.2106/jbjs.l.00211
62.
Everhart J.S., Altneu E., Calhoun J.H. Medical comorbidities are independent preoperative risk factors for surgical infection after total joint arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2013;471:3112-3119.
Not in our library10.1007/s11999-013-2923-9
63.
Jamsen E., Nevalainen P., Eskelinen A., Huotari K., Kalliovalkama J., Moilanen T. Obesity, diabetes, and preoperative hyperglycemia as predictors of periprosthetic joint infection: A single-center analysis of 7181 primary hip and knee replacements for osteoarthritis. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2012;94:e101.
Not in our library10.2106/jbjs.l.00193
64.
Van de Vosse E., van Dissel J.T., Ottenhoff T.H. Genetic deficiencies of innate immune signalling in human infectious disease. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2009;9:688-698.
Not in our library10.1016/s1473-3099(09)70255-5
65.
Kause A., Odegard J. The genetic analysis of tolerance to infections: A review. Front. Genet. 2012;3:262.
Not in our library10.3389/fgene.2012.00262
66.
Stahelova A., Mrazek F., Smizansky M., Petrek M., Gallo J. Variation in the IL1B, TNF and IL6 genes and individual susceptibility to prosthetic joint infection. BMC Immunol. 2012;13:25.
Not in our library10.1186/1471-2172-13-25
67.
Ratner B.D., Schoen F.J., Ratner B.D., Hoffman A.S., Schoen F.J., Lemons J.E. The concept and assessment of biocompatibility. Biomaterials Science: An Introduction to Materials in Medicine. 2013;588-592.
Not in our library
68.
A Mouse Model of Post-Arthroplasty Staphylococcus aureus Joint Infection to Evaluate In Vivo the Efficacy of Antimicrobial Implant Coatings · 2010
No notice
69.
Follmann H.D., Martins A.F., Gerola A.P., Burgo T.A., Nakamura C.V., Rubira A.F., Muniz E.C. Antiadhesive and antibacterial multilayer films via layer-by-layer assembly of TMC/heparin complexes. Biomacromolecules. 2012;13:3711-3722.
Not in our library10.1021/bm3011962
70.
Neoh K.G., Kang E.T. Combating bacterial colonization on metals via polymer coatings: Relevance to marine and medical applications. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2011;3:2808-2819.
Not in our library10.1021/am200646t
71.
Muszanska A.K., Rochford E.T., Gruszka A., Bastian A.A., Busscher H.J., Norde W., van der Mei H.C., Herrmann A. Antiadhesive polymer brush coating functionalized with antimicrobial and rgd peptides to reduce biofilm formation and enhance tissue integration. Biomacromolecules. 2014;15:2019-2026.
Not in our library10.1021/bm500168s
72.
An Y.H., Stuart G.W., McDowell S.J., McDaniel S.E., Kang Q., Friedman R.J. Prevention of bacterial adherence to implant surfaces with a crosslinked albumin coating in vitro. J. Orthop. Res. 1996;14:846-849.
Not in our library10.1002/jor.1100140526
73.
Zhu H., Guo Z., Liu W. Adhesion behaviors on superhydrophobic surfaces. Chem. Commun. (Camb.). 2014;18:3900-3913.
Not in our library10.1039/c3cc47818a
74.
Stallard C.P., McDonnell K.A., Onayemi O.D., O’Gara J.P., Dowling D.P. Evaluation of protein adsorption on atmospheric plasma deposited coatings exhibiting superhydrophilic to superhydrophobic properties. Biointerphases. 2012;7:31.
Not in our library10.1007/s13758-012-0031-0
75.
Poncin-Epaillard F., Herry J.M., Marmey P., Legeay G., Debarnot D., Bellon-Fontaine M.N. Elaboration of highly hydrophobic polymeric surface—A potential strategy to reduce the adhesion of pathogenic bacteria? Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2013;33:1152-1161.
Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2012.12.020
76.
Shida T., Koseki H., Yoda I., Horiuchi H., Sakoda H., Osaki M. Adherence ability of Staphylococcus epidermidis on prosthetic biomaterials: An in vitro study. Int. J. Nanomed. 2013;8:3955-3961.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s51994
77.
Quantitative Characterization of the Influence of the Nanoscale Morphology of Nanostructured Surfaces on Bacterial Adhesion and Biofilm Formation · 2011
No notice
78.
Ivanova E.P., Truong V.K., Wang J.Y., Berndt C.C., Jones R.T., Yusuf I.I., Peake I., Schmidt H.W., Fluke C., Barnes D., et al. Impact of nanoscale roughness of titanium thin film surfaces on bacterial retention. Langmuir. 2010;26:1973-1982.
Not in our library10.1021/la902623c
79.
Truong V.K., Lapovok R., Estrin Y.S., Rundell S., Wang J.Y., Fluke C.J., Crawford R.J., Ivanova E.P. The influence of nano-scale surface roughness on bacterial adhesion to ultrafine-grained titanium. Biomaterials. 2010;31:3674-3683.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.01.071
80.
Pandit V., Zuidema J.M., Venuto K.N., Macione J., Dai G., Gilbert R.J., Kotha S.P. Evaluation of multifunctional polysaccharide hydrogels with varying stiffness for bone tissue engineering. Tissue Eng. A. 2013;19:2452-2463.
Not in our library10.1089/ten.tea.2012.0644
81.
Zhao C., Li X., Li L., Cheng G., Gong X., Zheng J. Dual functionality of antimicrobial and antifouling of poly(N-hydroxyethylacrylamide)/salicylate hydrogels. Langmuir. 2013;29:1517-1524.
Not in our library10.1021/la304511s
82.
Zan X., Kozlov M., McCarthy T.J., Su Z. Covalently attached, silver-doped poly(vinyl alcohol) hydrogel films on poly(l-lactic acid). Biomacromolecules. 2010;11:1082-1088.
Not in our library10.1021/bm100048q
83.
Drago L., Boot W., Dimas K., Malizos K., Hansch G.M., Stuyck J., Gawlitta D., Romanò C.L. Does implant coating with antibacterial-loaded hydrogel reduce bacterial colonization and biofilm formation in vitro? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2014.
Not in our library10.1007/s11999-014-3558-1
84.
Cheng H., Li Y., Huo K., Gao B., Xiong W. Long-lasting in vivo and in vitro antibacterial ability of nanostructured titania coating incorporated with silver nanoparticles. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2013.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.a.35019
85.
Gao A., Hang R., Huang X., Zhao L., Zhang X., Wang L., Tang B., Ma S., Chu P.K. The effects of titania nanotubes with embedded silver oxide nanoparticles on bacteria and osteoblasts. Biomaterials. 2014;35:4223-4235.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.01.058
86.
Mei S., Wang H., Wang W., Tong L., Pan H., Ruan C., Ma Q., Liu M., Yang H., Zhang L., et al. Antibacterial effects and biocompatibility of titanium surfaces with graded silver incorporation in titania nanotubes. Biomaterials. 2014;35:4255-4265.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.02.005
87.
Dong W., Zhu Y., Zhang J., Lu L., Zhao C., Qin L., Li Y. Investigation on the antibacterial micro-porous titanium with silver nano-particles. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2013;13:6782-6786.
Not in our library10.1166/jnn.2013.7757
88.
Panacek A., Balzerova A., Prucek R., Ranc V., Vecerova R., Husickova V., Pechoušek J., Filip J., Zbořil R., Kvítek L. Preparation, characterization and antimicrobial efficiency of Ag/PDDA-diatomite nanocomposite. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 2013;110:191-198.
Not in our library10.1016/j.colsurfb.2013.04.031
89.
Kvitek L., Panacek A., Soukupova J., Kolar M., Vecerova R., Prucek R., Holecová M., Zbořil R. Effect of surfactants and polymers on stability and antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles (NPs). J. Phys. Chem. C. 2008;112:5825-5834.
Not in our library10.1021/jp711616v
90.
Knetsch M.L.W., Koole L.H. New strategies in the development of antimicrobial coatings: The example of increasing usage of silver and silver nanoparticles. Polymers. 2011;3:340-366.
Not in our library10.3390/polym3010340
91.
Koseki H., Asahara T., Shida T., Yoda I., Horiuchi H., Baba K., Osaki M. Clinical and histomorphometrical study on titanium dioxide-coated external fixation pins. Int. J. Nanomed. 2013;8:593-599.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s39201
92.
Haenle M., Fritsche A., Zietz C., Bader R., Heidenau F., Mittelmeier W., Gollwitzer H. An extended spectrum bactericidal titanium dioxide (TiO2) coating for metallic implants: In vitro effectiveness against MRSA and mechanical properties. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2011;22:381-387.
Not in our library10.1007/s10856-010-4204-4
93.
Yue C., Kuijer R., Kaper H.J., van der Mei H.C., Busscher H.J. Simultaneous interaction of bacteria and tissue cells with photocatalytically activated, anodized titanium surfaces. Biomaterials. 2014;35:2580-2587.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.12.036
94.
Holinka J., Pilz M., Kubista B., Presterl E., Windhager R. Effects of selenium coating of orthopaedic implant surfaces on bacterial adherence and osteoblastic cell growth. Bone Jt. J. 2013;95:678-682.
Not in our library10.2106/jbjs.j.01447
95.
Tran P.A., Webster T.J. Selenium nanoparticles inhibit Staphylococcus aureus growth. Int. J. Nanomed. 2011;6:1553-1558.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s21729
96.
Rodriguez-Valencia C., Lopez-Alvarez M., Cochon-Cores B., Pereiro I., Serra J., Gonzalez P. Novel selenium-doped hydroxyapatite coatings for biomedical applications. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2013;101:853-861.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.a.34387
97.
Hans M., Erbe A., Mathews S., Chen Y., Solioz M., Mucklich F. Role of copper oxides in contact killing of bacteria. Langmuir. 2013;29:16160-16166.
Not in our library10.1021/la404091z
98.
Hoene A., Prinz C., Walschus U., Lucke S., Patrzyk M., Wilhelm L., Neumann H.G., Schlosser M. In vivo evaluation of copper release and acute local tissue reactions after implantation of copper-coated titanium implants in rats. Biomed. Mater. 2013;8.
Not in our library10.1088/1748-6041/8/3/035009
99.
Elizabeth E., Baranwal G., Krishnan A.G., Menon D., Nair M. ZnO nanoparticle incorporated nanostructured metallic titanium for increased mesenchymal stem cell response and antibacterial activity. Nanotechnology. 2014;25.
Not in our library10.1088/0957-4484/25/11/115101
100.
Hu H., Zhang W., Qiao Y., Jiang X., Liu X., Ding C. Antibacterial activity and increased bone marrow stem cell functions of Zn-incorporated TiO2 coatings on titanium. Acta Biomater. 2012;8:904-915.
Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2011.09.031
101.
Antoci V., Adams C.S., Parvizi J., Ducheyne P., Shapiro I.M., Hickok N.J. Covalently attached vancomycin provides a nanoscale antibacterial surface. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2007;461:81-87.
Not in our library10.1097/blo.0b013e3181123a50
102.
Antoci V., King S.B., Jose B., Parvizi J., Zeiger A.R., Wickstrom E., Freeman T.A., Composto R.J., Ducheyne P., Shapiro I.M., et al. Vancomycin covalently bonded to titanium alloy prevents bacterial colonization. J. Orthop. Res. 2007;25:858-866.
Not in our library10.1002/jor.20348
103.
Walter M.S., Frank M.J., Satue M., Monjo M., Ronold H.J., Lyngstadaas S.P., Haugen H.J. Bioactive implant surface with electrochemically bound doxycycline promotes bone formation markers in vitro and in vivo. Dent. Mater. 2014;30:200-214.
Not in our library10.1016/j.dental.2013.11.006
104.
Chennell P., Feschet-Chassot E., Devers T., Awitor K.O., Descamps S., Sautou V. In vitro evaluation of TiO2 nanotubes as cefuroxime carriers on orthopaedic implants for the prevention of periprosthetic joint infections. Int. J. Pharm. 2013;455:298-305.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijpharm.2013.07.014
105.
Hickok N.J., Shapiro I.M. Immobilized antibiotics to prevent orthopaedic implant infections. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2012;64:1165-1176.
Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2012.03.015
106.
Norowski P.A., Courtney H.S., Babu J., Haggard W.O., Bumgardner J.D. Chitosan coatings deliver antimicrobials from titanium implants: A preliminary study. Implant Dent. 2011;20:56-67.
Not in our library10.1097/id.0b013e3182087ac4
107.
Chen X.N., Gu Y.X., Lee J.H., Lee W.Y., Wang H.J. Multifunctional surfaces with biomimetic nanofibres and drug-eluting micro-patterns for infection control and bone tissue formation. Eur. Cells Mater. 2012;24:237-248.
Not in our library10.22203/ecm.v024a17
108.
Renoud P., Toury B., Benayoun S., Attik G., Grosgogeat B. Functionalization of titanium with chitosan via silanation: Evaluation of biological and mechanical performances. PLoS One. 2012;7:e39367.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0039367
109.
Quaternized Chitosan as an Antimicrobial Agent: Antimicrobial Activity, Mechanism of Action and Biomedical Applications in Orthopedics · 2013
No notice
110.
Rapsch K., Bier F.F., Tadros M., von Nickisch-Rosenegk M. Identification of antimicrobial peptides and immobilization strategy suitable for a covalent surface coating with biocompatible properties. Bioconjug. Chem. 2014;25:308-319.
Not in our library10.1021/bc4004469
111.
Costa F., Carvalho I.F., Montelaro R.C., Gomes P., Martins M.C. Covalent immobilization of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) onto biomaterial surfaces. Acta Biomater. 2011;7:1431-1440.
Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2010.11.005
112.
Zheng D., Neoh K.G., Shi Z., Kang E.T. Assessment of stability of surface anchors for antibacterial coatings and immobilized growth factors on titanium. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2013;406:238-246.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jcis.2013.05.060
113.
Lopez-Leban F., Kiran M.D., Wolcott R., Balaban N. Molecular mechanisms of RIP, an effective inhibitor of chronic infections. Int. J. Artif. Organs. 2010;33:582-589.
Not in our library10.1177/039139881003300904
114.
Quorum Quenching Enzymes and Their Application in Degrading Signal Molecules to Block Quorum Sensing-Dependent Infection · 2013
No notice
115.
Bouchet A.M., Iannucci N.B., Pastrian M.B., Cascone O., Santos N.C., Disalvo E.A., Hollmann A. Biological activity of antibacterial peptides matches synergism between electrostatic and non electrostatic forces. Colloids Surf. B. 2014;114:363-371.
Not in our library10.1016/j.colsurfb.2013.10.025
116.
Li B., McKeague A.L. Emerging ideas: Interleukin-12 nanocoatings prevent open fracture-associated infections. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2011;469:3262-3265.
Not in our library10.1007/s11999-010-1690-0
117.
Thallinger B., Prasetyo E.N., Nyanhongo G.S., Guebitz G.M. Antimicrobial enzymes: An emerging strategy to fight microbes and microbial biofilms. Biotechnol. J. 2013;8:97-109.
Not in our library10.1002/biot.201200313
118.
Chua P.H., Neoh K.G., Kang E.T., Wang W. Surface functionalization of titanium with hyaluronic acid/chitosan polyelectrolyte multilayers and RGD for promoting osteoblast functions and inhibiting bacterial adhesion. Biomaterials. 2008;29:1412-1421.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.12.019
119.
Glinel K., Thebault P., Humblot V., Pradier C.M., Jouenne T. Antibacterial surfaces developed from bio-inspired approaches. Acta Biomater. 2012;8:1670-1684.
Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2012.01.011
120.
He T., Chan V. Covalent layer-by-layer assembly of polyethyleneimine multilayer for antibacterial applications. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2010;95:454-464.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.a.32872
121.
Fu J., Ji J., Fan D., Shen J. Construction of antibacterial multilayer films containing nanosilver via layer-by-layer assembly of heparin and chitosan-silver ions complex. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2006;79:665-674.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.a.30819
122.
Zhou B., Li Y., Deng H., Hu Y., Li B. Antibacterial multilayer films fabricated by layer-by-layer immobilizing lysozyme and gold nanoparticles on nanofibers. Colloids Surf. B. 2014;116:432-438.
Not in our library10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.01.016
123.
Huang W., Li X., Xue Y., Huang R., Deng H., Ma Z. Antibacterial multilayer films fabricated by LBL immobilizing lysozyme and HTCC on nanofibrous mats. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2013;53:26-31.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.10.024
124.
Min J., Braatz R.D., Hammond P.T. Tunable staged release of therapeutics from layer-by-layer coatings with clay interlayer barrier. Biomaterials. 2014;35:2507-2517.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.12.009
125.
Rizzello L., Pompa P.P. Nanosilver-based antibacterial drugs and devices: Mechanisms, methodological drawbacks, and guidelines. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013;7:1501-1518.
Not in our library10.1039/c3cs60218d
126.
Gottenbos B., van der Mei H.C., Klatter F., Grijpma D.W., Feijen J., Nieuwenhuis P., Busscher H.J. Positively charged biomaterials exert antimicrobial effects on gram-negative bacilli in rats. Biomaterials. 2003;24:2707-2710.
Not in our library10.1016/s0142-9612(03)00083-8
127.
Yu Q., Cho J., Shivapooja P., Ista L.K., Lopez G.P. Nanopatterned smart polymer surfaces for controlled attachment, killing, and release of bacteria. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2013;5:9295-9304.
Not in our library10.1021/am4022279
128.
Holzapfel B.M., Reichert J.C., Schantz J.T., Gbureck U., Rackwitz L., Nöth U., Jakob F., Rudert M., Groll J., Hutmacher D.W. How smart do biomaterials need to be? A translational science and clinical point of view. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2013;65:581-603.
Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2012.07.009
129.
Parvizi J., Antoci V., Hickok N.J., Shapiro I.M. Selfprotective smart orthopedic implants. Expert Rev. Med. Devices. 2007;4:55-64.
Not in our library10.1586/17434440.4.1.55
130.
Mastronardi E., Foster A., Zhang X., Derosa M.C. Smart materials based on DNA aptamers: Taking aptasensing to the next level. Sensors. 2014;14:3156-3171.
Not in our library10.3390/s140203156
131.
Ehrlich G.D., Stoodley P., Kathju S., Zhao Y., McLeod B.R., Balaban N., Hu F.Z., Sotereanos N.G., Costerton J.W., Stewart P.S., et al. Engineering approaches for the detection and control of orthopaedic biofilm infections. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2005;437:59-66.
Not in our library10.1097/00003086-200508000-00011
132.
Shchukin D.G., Mohwald H. Self-repairing coatings containing active nanoreservoirs. Small. 2007;3:926-943.
Not in our library10.1002/smll.200700064
133.
Shchukin D., Mohwald H. Materials science. A coat of many functions. Science. 2013;341:1458-1459.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1242895
134.
Yilmaz C., Colak M., Yilmaz B.C., Ersoz G., Kutateladze M., Gozlugol M. Bacteriophage therapy in implant-related infections: An experimental study. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2013;95:117-125.
Not in our library10.2106/jbjs.k.01135
135.
Ratner B.D., Hoffman A.S., Ratner B.D., Hoffman A.S., Schoen F.J., Lemons J.E. Physicochemical surface modifications of materials used in medicine. Biomaterials Science: An Introduction to Materials in Medicine. 2013;259-276.
Not in our library
136.
Daghighi S., Sjollema J., van der Mei H.C., Busscher H.J., Rochford E.T. Infection resistance of degradable versus non-degradable biomaterials: An assessment of the potential mechanisms. Biomaterials. 2013;34:8013-8017.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.07.044
137.
Campoccia D., Cangini I., Selan L., Vercellino M., Montanaro L., Visai L., Arciola C.R. An overview of the methodological approach to the in vitro study of anti-infective biomaterials. Int. J. Artif. Organs. 2012;35:800-816.
Not in our library10.5301/ijao.5000140
138.
Stoodley P., Hall-Stoodley L., Costerton B., DeMeo P., Shirtliff M., Gawalt E., Kathju S., Ratner B.D., Hoffman A.S., Schoen F.J., Lemons J.E. Biofilms, biomaterials, and device-related infections. Biomaterials Science: An Introduction to Materials in Medicine. 2013;565-583.
Not in our library
139.
Barros J., Grenho L., Manuel C.M., Ferreira C., Melo L.F., Nunes O.C., Monteiro F.J., Ferraz M.P. .A modular reactor to simulate biofilm development in orthopedic materials. Int. Microbiol. 2013;16:191-198.
Not in our library10.2436/20.1501.01.193
140.
Ludecke C., Jandt K.D., Siegismund D., Kujau M.J., Zang E., Rettenmayr M., Bossert J., Roth M. Reproducible biofilm cultivation of chemostat-grown Escherichia coli and investigation of bacterial adhesion on biomaterials using a non-constant-depth film fermenter. PLoS One. 2014;9:e84837.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0084837
141.
Zaborowska M., Welch K., Branemark R., Khalilpour P., Engqvist H., Thomsen P., Trobos M. Bacteria-material surface interactions: Methodological development for the assessment of implant surface induced antibacterial effects. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2014.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.b.33179
142.
Campoccia D., Montanaro L., Arciola C.R. A review of the biomaterials technologies for infection-resistant surfaces. Biomaterials. 2013;34:8533-8554.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.07.089
143.
Rojo L., Barcenilla J.M., Vazquez B., Gonzalez R., San Roman J. Intrinsically antibacterial materials based on polymeric derivatives of eugenol for biomedical applications. Biomacromolecules. 2008;9:2530-2535.
Not in our library10.1021/bm800570u
144.
Song C., Zheng Y. Wetting-controlled strategies: From theories to bio-inspiration. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2013.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jcis.2013.10.067
145.
MacCallum J.L., Tieleman D.P. Hydrophobicity scales: A thermodynamic looking glass into lipid-protein interactions. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2011;36:653-662.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tibs.2011.08.003
146.
Bieser A.M., Tiller J.C. Mechanistic considerations on contact-active antimicrobial surfaces with controlled functional group densities. Macromol. Biosci. 2011;11:526-534.
Not in our library10.1002/mabi.201000398
147.
Braem A., van Mellaert L., Mattheys T., Hofmans D., de Waelheyns E., Geris L., Anné J., Schrooten J., Vleugels J. Staphylococcal biofilm growth on smooth and porous titanium coatings for biomedical applications. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2013.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.a.34688
148.
Vadillo-Rodriguez V., Pacha-Olivenza M.A., Gonzalez-Martin M.L., Bruque J.M., Gallardo-Moreno A.M. Adsorption behavior of human plasma fibronectin on hydrophobic and hydrophilic Ti6Al4V substrata and its influence on bacterial adhesion and detachment. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2013;101:1397-1404.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.a.34447
149.
Yeo I.S., Kim H.Y., Lim K.S., Han J.S. Implant surface factors and bacterial adhesion: A review of the literature. Int. J. Artif. Organs. 2012;35:762-772.
Not in our library10.5301/ijao.5000154
150.
Lu T., Qiao Y., Liu X. Surface modification of biomaterials using plasma immersion ion implantation and deposition. Interface Focus. 2012;2:325-336.
Not in our library10.1098/rsfs.2012.0003
151.
Bacakova L., Filova E., Parizek M., Ruml T., Svorcik V. Modulation of cell adhesion, proliferation and differentiation on materials designed for body implants. Biotechnol. Adv. 2011;29:739-767.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.06.004
152.
Badihi Hauslich L., Sela M.N., Steinberg D., Rosen G., Kohavi D. The adhesion of oral bacteria to modified titanium surfaces: Role of plasma proteins and electrostatic forces. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:49-56.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02364.x
153.
Dale H., Skramm I., Lower H.L., Eriksen H.M., Espehaug B., Furnes O., Skjeldestad F.E., Havelin L.I., Engesaeter L.B. Infection after primary hip arthroplasty: A comparison of 3 Norwegian health registers. Acta Orthop. 2011;82:646-654.
Not in our library10.3109/17453674.2011.636671
154.
Engesaeter L.B., Espehaug B., Lie S.A., Furnes O., Havelin L.I. Does cement increase the risk of infection in primary total hip arthroplasty? Revision rates in 56,275 cemented and uncemented primary THAs followed for 0–16 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2006;77:351-358.
Not in our library10.1080/17453670610046253
155.
Anselme K., Davidson P., Popa A.M., Giazzon M., Liley M., Ploux L. The interaction of cells and bacteria with surfaces structured at the nanometre scale. Acta Biomater. 2010;6:3824-3846.
Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2010.04.001
156.
Puckett S.D., Taylor E., Raimondo T., Webster T.J. The relationship between the nanostructure of titanium surfaces and bacterial attachment. Biomaterials. 2010;31:706-713.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.09.081
157.
Mitik-Dineva N., Wang J., Mocanasu R.C., Stoddart P.R., Crawford R.J., Ivanova E.P. Impact of nano-topography on bacterial attachment. Biotechnol. J. 2008;3:536-544.
Not in our library10.1002/biot.200700244
158.
Mitik-Dineva N., Wang J., Truong V.K., Stoddart P., Malherbe F., Crawford R.J., Ivanova E.P. Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus attachment patterns on glass surfaces with nanoscale roughness. Curr. Microbiol. 2009;58:268-273.
Not in our library10.1007/s00284-008-9320-8
159.
An Y.H., Bradley J., Powers D.L., Friedman R.J. The prevention of prosthetic infection using a cross-linked albumin coating in a rabbit model. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 1997;79:816-819.
Not in our library10.1302/0301-620x.79b5.7228
160.
Harris L.G., Tosatti S., Wieland M., Textor M., Richards R.G. Staphylococcus aureus adhesion to titanium oxide surfaces coated with non-functionalized and peptide-functionalized poly(l-lysine)-grafted-poly(ethylene glycol) copolymers. Biomaterials. 2004;25:4135-4148.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.11.033
161.
Foka A., Katsikogianni M.G., Anastassiou E.D., Spiliopoulou I., Missirlis Y.F. The combined effect of surface chemistry and flow conditions on Staphylococcus epidermidis adhesion and ica operon expression. Eur. Cells Mater. 2012;24:386-402.
Not in our library10.22203/ecm.v024a28
162.
Leisner M., Kuhr J.T., Radler J.O., Frey E., Maier B. Kinetics of genetic switching into the state of bacterial competence. Biophys. J. 2009;96:1178-1188.
Not in our library10.1016/j.bpj.2008.10.034
163.
Norman T.M., Lord N.D., Paulsson J., Losick R. Memory and modularity in cell-fate decision making. Nature. 2013;503:481-486.
Not in our library10.1038/nature12804
164.
Decuzzi P., Ferrari M. Modulating cellular adhesion through nanotopography. Biomaterials. 2010;31:173-179.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.09.018
165.
Carson L., Gorman S.P., Gilmore B.F. The use of lytic bacteriophages in the prevention and eradication of biofilms of Proteus mirabilis and Escherichia coli. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 2010;59:447-455.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1574-695x.2010.00696.x
166.
Siddiq D.M., Darouiche R.O. New strategies to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Nat. Rev. Urol. 2012;9:305-314.
Not in our library10.1038/nrurol.2012.68
167.
Borovicka J., Metheringham W.J., Madden L.A., Walton C.D., Stoyanov S.D., Paunov V.N. Photothermal colloid antibodies for shape-selective recognition and killing of microorganisms. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013;135:5282-5285.
Not in our library10.1021/ja400781f
168.
Gomes J., Grunau A., Lawrence A.K., Eberl L., Gademann K. Bioinspired surfaces against bacterial infections. Chimia. 2013;67:275-278.
Not in our library10.2533/chimia.2013.275
169.
Lemire J.A., Harrison J.J., Turner R.J. Antimicrobial activity of metals: Mechanisms, molecular targets and applications. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2013;11:371-384.
Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro3028
170.
Visai L., de Nardo L., Punta C., Melone L., Cigada A., Imbriani M., Arciola C.R. Titanium oxide antibacterial surfaces in biomedical devices. Int. J. Artif. Organs. 2011;34:929-946.
Not in our library10.5301/ijao.5000050
171.
Moseke C., Gbureck U., Elter P., Drechsler P., Zoll A., Thull R., Ewald A. Hard implant coatings with antimicrobial properties. J. Mater. Sci.-Mater. Med. 2011;22:2711-2720.
Not in our library10.1007/s10856-011-4457-6
172.
Chernousova S., Epple M. Silver as antibacterial agent: Ion, nanoparticle, and metal. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2013;52:1636-1653.
Not in our library10.1002/anie.201205923
173.
Mijnendonckx K., Leys N., Mahillon J., Silver S., van Houdt R. Antimicrobial silver: Uses, toxicity and potential for resistance. Biometals. 2013;26:609-621.
Not in our library10.1007/s10534-013-9645-z
174.
Fielding G.A., Roy M., Bandyopadhyay A., Bose S. Antibacterial and biological characteristics of silver containing and strontium doped plasma sprayed hydroxyapatite coatings. Acta Biomater. 2012;8:3144-3152.
Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2012.04.004
175.
Noda I., Miyaji F., Ando Y., Miyamoto H., Shimazaki T., Yonekura Y., Miyazaki M., Mawatari M., Hotokebuchi T. Development of novel thermal sprayed antibacterial coating and evaluation of release properties of silver ions. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2009;89:456-465.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.b.31235
176.
Panacek A., Kolar M., Vecerova R., Prucek R., Soukupova J., Krystof V., Hamal P., Zboril R., Kvítek L. Antifungal activity of silver nanoparticles against Candida spp. Biomaterials. 2009;30:6333-6340.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.07.065
177.
Grass G., Rensing C., Solioz M. Metallic copper as an antimicrobial surface. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011;77:1541-1547.
Not in our library10.1128/aem.02766-10
178.
Petrini P., Arciola C.R., Pezzali I., Bozzini S., Montanaro L., Tanzi M.C., Speziale P., Visai L. Antibacterial activity of zinc modified titanium oxide surface. Int. J. Artif. Organs. 2006;29:434-442.
Not in our library10.1177/039139880602900414
179.
Elguindi J., Wagner J., Rensing C. Genes involved in copper resistance influence survival of Pseudomonas aeruginosa on copper surfaces. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2009;106:1448-1455.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04148.x
180.
Hodgkinson V., Petris M.J. Copper homeostasis at the host-pathogen interface. J. Biol. Chem. 2012;287:13549-13555.
Not in our library10.1074/jbc.r111.316406
181.
Pelgrift R.Y., Friedman A.J. Nanotechnology as a therapeutic tool to combat microbial resistance. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2013;65:1803-1815.
Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2013.07.011
182.
Vargas-Reus M.A., Memarzadeh K., Huang J., Ren G.G., Allaker R.P. Antimicrobial activity of nanoparticulate metal oxides against peri-implantitis pathogens. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2012;40:135-139.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2012.04.012
183.
Zhao L., Chu P.K., Zhang Y., Wu Z. Antibacterial coatings on titanium implants. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B. 2009;91:470-480.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.b.31463
184.
Finke B., Polak M., Hempel F., Rebl H., Zietz C., Stranak V., Lukowski G., Hippler R., Bader R., Nebe J.B., et al. Antimicrobial potential of copper-containing titanium surfaces generated by ion implantation and dual high power impulse magnetron sputtering. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2012;14:B224-B230.
Not in our library
185.
Arenas M.A., Perez-Jorge C., Conde A., Matykina E., Hernandez-Lopez J.M., Perez-Tanoira R., de Damborenea J.J., Gómez-Barrena E., Esteba J. Doped TiO2 anodic layers of enhanced antibacterial properties. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 2013;105:106-112.
Not in our library10.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.12.051
186.
Xia W., Grandfield K., Hoess A., Ballo A., Cai Y., Engqvist H. Mesoporous titanium dioxide coating for metallic implants. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2012;100:82-93.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.b.31925
187.
Uhm S.H., Song D.H., Kwon J.S., Lee S.B., Han J.G., Kim K.N. Tailoring of antibacterial Ag nanostructures on TiO2 nanotube layers by magnetron sputtering. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B. 2014;102:592-603.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.b.33038
188.
Masse A., Bruno A., Bosetti M., Biasibetti A., Cannas M., Gallinaro P. Prevention of pin track infection in external fixation with silver coated pins: Clinical and microbiological results. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2000;53:600-604.
Not in our library10.1002/1097-4636(200009)53:5<600::aid-jbm21>3.0.co;2-d
189.
Kakinuma H., Ishii K., Ishihama H., Honda M., Toyama Y., Matsumoto M., Aizawa M. Antibacterial polyetheretherketone implants immobilized with silver ions based on chelate-bonding ability of inositol phosphate: Processing, material characterization, cytotoxicity, and antibacterial properties. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2014.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.a.35157
190.
Wang Q., Webster T.J. Nanostructured selenium for preventing biofilm formation on polycarbonate medical devices. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2012;100:3205-3210.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.a.34262
191.
Martynkova G.S., Valaskova M. Antimicrobial nanocomposites based on natural modified materials: A review of carbons and clays. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2014;14:673-693.
Not in our library10.1166/jnn.2014.8903
192.
Alt V., Bitschnau A., Osterling J., Sewing A., Meyer C., Kraus R., Meissner S.A., Wenisch S., Domann E., Schnettler R. The effects of combined gentamicin-hydroxyapatite coating for cementless joint prostheses on the reduction of infection rates in a rabbit infection prophylaxis model. Biomaterials. 2006;27:4627-4634.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.04.035
193.
Schmidmaier G., Lucke M., Wildemann B., Haas N.P., Raschke M. Prophylaxis and treatmentof implant-related infections by antibiotic-coated implants: A review. Injury. 2006;37:S105-S112.
Not in our library10.1016/j.injury.2006.04.016
194.
Fei J., Liu G.D., Pan C.J., Chen J.Y., Zhou Y.G., Xiao S.H., Wang Y., Yu H.J. Preparation, release profiles and antibacterial properties of vancomycin-loaded Ca-P coating titanium alloy plate. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2011;22:989-995.
Not in our library10.1007/s10856-011-4277-8
195.
Neut D., Dijkstra R.J., Thompson J.I., van der Mei H.C., Busscher H.J. A gentamicin-releasing coating for cementless hip prostheses-Longitudinal evaluation of efficacy using in vitro bio-optical imaging and its wide-spectrum antibacterial efficacy. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2012;100:3220-3226.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.a.34258
196.
Shi X., Wu H., Li Y., Wei X., Du Y. Electrical signals guided entrapment and controlled release of antibiotics on titanium surface. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2013;101:1373-1378.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.a.34432
197.
Salwiczek M., Qu Y., Gardiner J., Strugnell R.A., Lithgow T., McLean K.M., Thissen H. Emerging rules for effective antimicrobial coatings. Trends Biotechnol. 2013;32:82-90.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.09.008
198.
Friedman A., Friedman J. New biomaterials for the sustained release of nitric oxide: Past, present and future. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2009;6:1113-1122.
Not in our library10.1517/17425240903196743
199.
Yount N.Y., Yeaman M.R. Emerging themes and therapeutic prospects for anti-infective peptides. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2012;52:337-360.
Not in our library10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010611-134535
200.
Antibiotic development challenges: the various mechanisms of action of antimicrobial peptides and of bacterial resistance · 2013
No notice
201.
Haney E.F., Hancock R.E. Peptide design for antimicrobial and immunomodulatory applications. Biopolymers. 2013;100:572-583.
Not in our library10.1002/bip.22250
202.
Dobson A.J., Purves J., Kamysz W., Rolff J. Comparing selection on S. aureus between antimicrobial peptides and common antibiotics. PLoS One. 2013;8:e76521.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0076521
203.
Kazemzadeh-Narbat M., Lai B.F., Ding C., Kizhakkedathu J.N., Hancock R.E., Wang R. Multilayered coating on titanium for controlled release of antimicrobial peptides for the prevention of implant-associated infections. Biomaterials. 2013;34:5969-5977.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.04.036
204.
Kazemzadeh-Narbat M., Kindrachuk J., Duan K., Jenssen H., Hancock R.E., Wang R. Antimicrobial peptides on calcium phosphate-coated titanium for the prevention of implant-associated infections. Biomaterials. 2010;31:9519-9526.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.08.035
205.
Forbes S., McBain A.J., Felton-Smith S., Jowitt T.A., Birchenough H.L., Dobson C.B. Comparative surface antimicrobial properties of synthetic biocides and novel human apolipoprotein E derived antimicrobial peptides. Biomaterials. 2013;34:5453-5464.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.03.087
206.
Holmberg K.V., Abdolhosseini M., Li Y., Chen X., Gorr S.U., Aparicio C. Bio-inspired stable antimicrobial peptide coatings for dental applications. Acta Biomater. 2013;9:8224-8231.
Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2013.06.017
207.
Gao G., Lange D., Hilpert K., Kindrachuk J., Zou Y., Cheng J.T., Kazemzadeh-Narbat M., Yu K., Wang R., Straus S.K., et al. The biocompatibility and biofilm resistance of implant coatings based on hydrophilic polymer brushes conjugated with antimicrobial peptides. Biomaterials. 2011;32:3899-3909.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.02.013
208.
Li B., Jiang B., Boyce B.M., Lindsey B.A. Multilayer polypeptide nanoscale coatings incorporating IL-12 for the prevention of biomedical device-associated infections. Biomaterials. 2009;30:2552-2558.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.01.042
209.
Pereira C.S., Thompson J.A., Xavier K.B. AI-2-mediated signalling in bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2013;37:156-181.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1574-6976.2012.00345.x
210.
Lui L.T., Xue X., Sui C., Brown A., Pritchard D.I., Halliday N., Winzer K., Howdle S.M., Fernandez-Trillo F., Krasnogor N., et al. Bacteria clustering by polymers induces the expression of quorum-sensing-controlled phenotypes. Nat. Chem. 2013;5:1058-1065.
Not in our library10.1038/nchem.1793
211.
Gomes J., Grunau A., Lawrence A.K., Eberl L., Gademann K. Bioinspired, releasable quorum sensing modulators. Chem. Commun. (Camb.). 2013;49:155-157.
Not in our library10.1039/c2cc37287h
212.
Brooks J.L., Jefferson K.K. Staphylococcal biofilms: Quest for the magic bullet. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 2012;81:63-87.
Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-12-394382-8.00002-2
213.
Kiran M.D., Giacometti A., Cirioni O., Balaban N. Suppression of biofilm related, device-associated infections by staphylococcal quorum sensing inhibitors. Int. J. Artif. Organs. 2008;31:761-770.
Not in our library10.1177/039139880803100903
214.
Chen G., Swem L.R., Swem D.L., Stauff D.L., O’Loughlin C.T., Jeffrey P.D., Bassler B.L., Hughson F.M. A strategy for antagonizing quorum sensing. Mol. Cell. 2011;42:199-209.
Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2011.04.003
215.
Ho K.K., Chen R., Willcox M.D., Rice S.A., Cole N., Iskander G., Kumar N. Quorum sensing inhibitory activities of surface immobilized antibacterial dihydropyrrolones via click chemistry. Biomaterials. 2013;35:2336-2345.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.11.072
216.
Bottcher T., Kolodkin-Gal I., Kolter R., Losick R., Clardy J. Synthesis and activity of biomimetic biofilm disruptors. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013;135:2927-2930.
Not in our library10.1021/ja3120955
217.
Gu Y., Zhang W., Wang H., Lee W.Y. Chitosan surface enhances the mobility, cytoplasm spreading, and phagocytosis of macrophage. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 2014;117:42-50.
Not in our library10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.01.051
218.
Peng Z.X., Tu B., Shen Y., Du L., Wang L., Guo S.R., Tang T.T. Quaternized chitosan inhibits icaA transcription and biofilm formation by Staphylococcus on a titanium surface. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2011;55:860-866.
Not in our library10.1128/aac.01005-10
219.
Tan H., Peng Z., Li Q., Xu X., Guo S., Tang T. The use of quaternised chitosan-loaded PMMA to inhibit biofilm formation and downregulate the virulence-associated gene expression of antibiotic-resistant staphylococcus. Biomaterials. 2012;33:365-377.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.09.084
220.
Yang C.C., Lin C.C., Liao J.W., Yen S.K. Vancomycin-chitosan composite deposited on post porous hydroxyapatite coated Ti6Al4V implant for drug controlled release. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2013;33:2203-2212.
Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2013.01.038
221.
Banerjee M., Mallick S., Paul A., Chattopadhyay A., Ghosh S.S. Heightened reactive oxygen species generation in the antimicrobial activity of a three component iodinated chitosan-silver nanoparticle composite. Langmuir. 2010;26:5901-5908.
Not in our library10.1021/la9038528
222.
Costa F., Maia S., Gomes P., Martins M.C. Characterization of hLF1-11 immobilization onto chitosan ultrathin films, and its effects on antimicrobial activity. Acta Biomater. 2014.
Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2014.02.028
223.
Jennison T., McNally M., Pandit H. Prevention of infection in external fixator pin sites. Acta Biomater. 2014;10:595-603.
Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2013.09.019
224.
Shi Z., Neoh K.G., Kang E.T., Wang W. Antibacterial and mechanical properties of bone cement impregnated with chitosan nanoparticles. Biomaterials. 2006;27:2440-2449.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.11.036
225.
Rizzello L., Cingolani R., Pompa P.P. Nanotechnology tools for antibacterial materials. Nanomedicine (Lond.). 2013;8:807-821.
Not in our library10.2217/nnm.13.63
226.
Taylor E., Webster T.J. Reducing infections through nanotechnology and nanoparticles. Int. J. Nanomed. 2011;6:1463-1473.
Not in our library10.2217/nnm.11.123
227.
Nair L.S., Laurencin C.T. Nanofibers and nanoparticles for orthopaedic surgery applications. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2008;90:128-131.
Not in our library10.2106/jbjs.g.01520
228.
Campoccia D., Montanaro L., Agheli H., Sutherland D.S., Pirini V., Donati M.E., Arciola C.R. Study of Staphylococcus aureus adhesion on a novel nanostructured surface by chemiluminometry. Int. J. Artif. Organs. 2006;29:622-629.
Not in our library10.1177/039139880602900612
229.
Lee F.P., Wang D.J., Chen L.K., Kung C.M., Wu Y.C., Ou K.L., Yu C.H. Antibacterial nanostructured composite films for biomedical applications: Microstructural characteristics, biocompatibility, and antibacterial mechanisms. Biofouling. 2013;29:295-305.
Not in our library10.1080/08927014.2013.769967
230.
Montanaro L., Campoccia D., Arciola C.R. Nanostructured materials for inhibition of bacterial adhesion in orthopedic implants: A minireview. Int. J. Artif. Organs. 2008;31:771-776.
Not in our library10.1177/039139880803100904
231.
Wang H., Cheng M., Hu J., Wang C., Xu S., Han C.C. Preparation and optimization of silver nanoparticles embedded electrospun membrane for implant associated infections prevention. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2013;5:11014-11021.
Not in our library10.1021/am403250t
232.
Lischer S., Korner E., Balazs D.J., Shen D., Wick P., Grieder K., Haas D., Heuberger M., Hegemann D. Antibacterial burst-release from minimal Ag-containing plasma polymer coatings. J. R. Soc. Interface. 2011;8:1019-1030.
Not in our library10.1098/rsif.2010.0596
233.
Zhang X., Li Z., Yuan X., Cui Z., Bao H., Li X., Liu Y., Yang X. Cytotoxicity and antibacterial property of titanium alloy coated with silver nanoparticle-containing polyelectrolyte multilayer. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2013;33:2816-2820.
Not in our library10.1016/j.msec.2013.03.010
234.
Song J., Jang J. Antimicrobial polymer nanostructures: Synthetic route, mechanism of action and perspective. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2014;203:37-50.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cis.2013.11.007
235.
Marková Z., Šišková K., Filip J., Šafářová K., Prucek R., Panáček A., Kolář M., Zbořil R. Chitosan-based synthesis of magnetically-driven nanocomposites with biogenic magnetite core, controlled silver size, and high antimicrobial activity. Green Chem. 2012;14:2550-2558.
Not in our library10.1039/c2gc35545k
236.
Prucek R., Tucek J., Kilianova M., Panacek A., Kvitek L., Filip J., Kolář M., Tománková K., Zbořil R. The targeted antibacterial and antifungal properties of magnetic nanocomposite of iron oxide and silver nanoparticles. Biomaterials. 2011;32:4704-4713.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.03.039
237.
Panacek A., Kvitek L., Prucek R., Kolar M., Vecerova R., Pizurova N., Sharma V.K., Nevecna T., Zboril R. Silver colloid nanoparticles: Synthesis, characterization, and their antibacterial activity. J. Phys. Chem. B. 2006;110:16248-16253.
Not in our library10.1021/jp063826h
238.
Particle-Cell Contact Enhances Antibacterial Activity of Silver Nanoparticles · 2013
No notice
239.
Agnihotri S., Mukherji S., Mukherji S. Immobilized silver nanoparticles enhance contact killing and show highest efficacy: Elucidation of the mechanism of bactericidal action of silver. Nanoscale. 2013;5:7328-7340.
Not in our library10.1039/c3nr00024a
240.
Martinez-Gutierrez F., Boegli L., Agostinho A., Sanchez E.M., Bach H., Ruiz F., James G. Anti-biofilm activity of silver nanoparticles against different microorganisms. Biofouling. 2013;29:651-660.
Not in our library10.1080/08927014.2013.794225
241.
Kose N., Otuzbir A., Peksen C., Kiremitci A., Dogan A. A silver ion-doped calcium phosphate-based ceramic nanopowder-coated prosthesis increased infection resistance. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2013;471:2532-2539.
Not in our library10.1007/s11999-013-2894-x
242.
Della Valle C., Visai L., Santin M., Cigada A., Candiani G., Pezzoli D., Arciola C.R., Imbriani M., Chiesa R. A novel antibacterial modification treatment of titanium capable to improve osseointegration. Int. J. Artif. Organs. 2012;35:864-875.
Not in our library10.5301/ijao.5000161
243.
Liu Y., Zheng Z., Zara J.N., Hsu C., Soofer D.E., Lee K.S., Siu R.K., Miller L.S., Zhang X., Carpenter D., et al. The antimicrobial and osteoinductive properties of silver nanoparticle/poly (dl-lactic-co-glycolic acid)-coated stainless steel. Biomaterials. 2012;33:8745-8756.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.08.010
244.
Lan M.Y., Liu C.P., Huang H.H., Lee S.W. Both enhanced biocompatibility and antibacterial activity in Ag-decorated TiO2 nanotubes. PLoS One. 2013;8:e75364.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0075364
245.
Seil J.T., Webster T.J. Antibacterial effect of zinc oxide nanoparticles combined with ultrasound. Nanotechnology. 2012;23:495101.
Not in our library10.1088/0957-4484/23/49/495101
246.
Vishwakarma V., Josephine J., George R.P., Krishnan R., Dash S., Kamruddin M., Kalavathi S., Manoharan N., Tyagi A.K., Dayal R.K. Antibacterial copper-nickel bilayers and multilayer coatings by pulsed laser deposition on titanium. Biofouling. 2009;25:705-710.
Not in our library10.1080/08927010903132183
247.
Jan T., Iqbal J., Ismail M., Zakaullah M., Naqvi S.H., Badshah N. Sn doping induced enhancement in the activity of ZnO nanostructures against antibiotic resistant S. aureus bacteria. Int. J. Nanomed. 2013;8:3679-3687.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s45439
248.
Campoccia D., Montanaro L., Arciola C.R. A review of the clinical implications of anti-infective biomaterials and infection-resistant surfaces. Biomaterials. 2013;34:8018-8029.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.07.048
249.
Shirwaiker R.A., Samberg M.E., Cohen P.H., Wysk R.A., Monteiro-Riviere N.A. Nanomaterialsand synergistic low-intensity direct current (LIDC) stimulation technology for orthopedic implantable medical devices. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 2013;5:191-204.
Not in our library10.1002/wnan.1201
250.
Wang J., Zhu Y., Bawa H.K., Ng G., Wu Y., Libera M., van der Mei H.C., Busscher H.J., Yu X. Oxygen-generating nanofiber cell scaffolds with antimicrobial properties. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2011;3:67-73.
Not in our library10.1021/am100862h
251.
The Dendritic Cell Response to Classic, Emerging, and Homeostatic Danger Signals. Implications for Autoimmunity · 2013
No notice
252.
Shtansky D.V., Gloushankova N.A., Bashkova I.A., Kharitonova M.A., Moizhess T.G., Sheveiko A.N., Kiryukhantsev-Korneev F.V., Petrzhik M.I., Levashov E.A. Multifunctional Ti-(Ca,Zr)-(C,N,O,P) films for load-bearing implants. Biomaterials. 2006;27:3519-3531.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.02.012
253.
Hardes J., von Eiff C., Streitbuerger A., Balke M., Budny T., Henrichs M.P., Hauschild G., Ahrens H. Reduction of periprosthetic infection with silver-coated megaprostheses in patients with bone sarcoma. J. Surg. Oncol. 2010;101:389-395.
Not in our library10.1002/jso.21498
254.
Hussmann B., Johann I., Kauther M.D., Landgraeber S., Jager M., Lendemans S. Measurement of the silver ion concentration in wound fluids after implantation of silver-coated megaprostheses: Correlation with the clinical outcome. BioMed Res. Int. 2013;2013:763096.
Not in our library10.1155/2013/763096
255.
Tran P.A., Sarin L., Hurt R.H., Webster T.J. Titanium surfaces with adherent selenium nanoclusters as a novel anticancer orthopedic material. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2010;93:1417-1428.
Not in our library10.1002/jbm.a.32631
256.
Pishbin F., Mourino V., Flor S., Kreppel S., Salih V., Ryan M.P., Boccaccini A.R. Electrophoretic deposition of gentamicin-loaded bioactive glass/chitosan composite coatings for orthopaedic implants. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2014;6:8796-8806.
Not in our library10.1021/am5014166
257.
Zhuang J., Gordon M.R., Ventura J., Li L., Thayumanavan S. Multi-stimuli responsive macromolecules and their assemblies. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013;42:7421-7435.
Not in our library10.1039/c3cs60094g
258.
Furth M.E., Atala A., van Dyke M.E. Smart biomaterials design for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Biomaterials. 2007;28:5068-5073.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.042
259.
Schneider G.F., Decher G. From “nano-bags” to “micro-pouches”. Understanding and tweaking flocculation-based processes for the preparation of new nanoparticle-composites. Nano Lett. 2008;8:3598-3604.
Not in our library10.1021/nl801511w
260.
Zhao X., Meng G., Han F., Li X., Chen B., Xu Q., Zhu X., Chu Z., Kong M., Huang Q. Nanocontainers made of various materials with tunable shape and size. Sci. Rep. 2013;3:2238.
Not in our library10.1038/srep02238
261.
Grainger D.W., van der Mei H.C., Jutte P.C., van den Dungen J.J., Schultz M.J., van der Laan B.F., Zaat S.A., Busscher H.J. Critical factors in the translation of improved antimicrobial strategies for medical implants and devices. Biomaterials. 2013;34:9237-9243.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.08.043

Cited by papers we hold 3

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.