Literature DB >> 21071919

Are bacterial growth and/or chemotaxis increased by filler injections? Implications for the pathogenesis and treatment of filler-related granulomas.

Jaume Alijotas-Reig1, Francesc Miró-Mur, Irene Planells-Romeu, Natalia Garcia-Aranda, Victor Garcia-Gimenez, Miquel Vilardell-Tarrés.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As microbial agents have been associated with late adverse effects related to fillers antibiotic treatment has been envisaged.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether biomaterials favor bacterial growth and/or attract bacteria.
METHODS: Hyaluronic acid, semi-permanent fillers, such as calcium hydroxylapatite, and permanent fillers, such as polyalkylimide/polyacrylamide, were used. Experiments were performed with Escherichia coli, strain HVH-U47. Bacteria were transferred to Sven-Gard agar to test mobility. Striae of this bacterial strain with a MacFarland 1 turbulence pattern were seeded from a spot of inoculated biomaterial using Müller-Hinton medium. The chemoattractive properties of the biomaterials were analyzed 10 days after inoculation. Bacterial growth over the biomaterial and in-depth growth were assessed as well.
RESULTS: Semi-permanent fillers did not stimulate bacterial growth but they allowed bacterial colonization over the filler. Permanent acrylic compounds neither presented chemoattractant properties nor showed bacterial growth over the biomaterial. Similar results were obtained when performing in-depth cultures.
CONCLUSIONS: Permanent and semi-permanent fillers did not facilitate bacterial growth when flagellated E. coli HVH-U47 was used. Our results do not argue in favor of antibiotics as the mainstay of therapy in late granulomas related to permanent fillers. In the case of resorbable/semi-permanent fillers, more studies are needed before recommending antibiotic therapy.
Copyright © 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21071919     DOI: 10.1159/000321329

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dermatology        ISSN: 1018-8665            Impact factor:   5.366


  6 in total

1.  Probable biofilm formation in the cheek as a complication of soft tissue filler resulting from improper endodontic treatment of tooth 16.

Authors:  Wojciech Marusza; Grazyna Mlynarczyk; Romuald Olszanski; Irina Netsvyetayeva; Michael Obrowski; Tommaso Iannitti; Beniamino Palmieri
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2012-03-14

2.  Injections through skin colonized with Staphylococcus aureus biofilm introduce contamination despite standard antimicrobial preparation procedures.

Authors:  Yi Wang; Valery Leng; Viraj Patel; K Scott Phillips
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Are Delayed Dermal Filler Granulomas More Common Since COVID-19?

Authors:  Jonathan C Michel; Jon D Perenack; Andrew G Chapple; Brian J Christensen
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2022-09-24       Impact factor: 2.136

Review 4.  Late-onset inflammatory adverse reactions related to soft tissue filler injections.

Authors:  Jaume Alijotas-Reig; Maria Teresa Fernández-Figueras; Lluís Puig
Journal:  Clin Rev Allergy Immunol       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 10.817

Review 5.  Foreign body granulomatous reactions to cosmetic fillers.

Authors:  Laura Carlos-Fabuel; Cristina Marzal-Gamarra; Silvia Martí-Álamo; Aisha Mancheño-Franch
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2012-10-01

6.  Late Presentation of Infected Silicone Granulomas in the Lower Limb.

Authors:  Zita M Jessop; Matthew Welck; Emily Zinser; Nicholas Garlick; Susan Hopkins
Journal:  Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-02-22
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.