| Literature DB >> 27386141 |
Norbert Harrasser1, Sebastian Jüssen2, Andreas Obermeir2, Ralf Kmeth3, Bernd Stritzker3, Hans Gollwitzer4, Rainer Burgkart2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antibacterial coatings of medical devices have been introduced as a promising approach to reduce the risk of infection. In this context, diamond-like carbon coated polyethylene (DLC-PE) can be enriched with bactericidal ions and gain antimicrobial potency. So far, influence of different deposition methods and ions on antimicrobial effects of DLC-PE is unclear.Entities:
Keywords: Antibacterial coating; Copper; Diamond-like carbon; Implant-associated infections; Silver; Staphylococcus epidermidis
Year: 2016 PMID: 27386141 PMCID: PMC4934003 DOI: 10.1186/s40824-016-0062-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomater Res ISSN: 1226-4601
Fig. 1Scheme of deposition methods for ions: a) direct ion implantation (II), b) plasma immersion ion implantation (PIII); Note: II allows incorporation of ions only on the sample surface struck by the ion beam; PIII allows homogenous incorporation of ions on complex shaped surfaces due to liquid plasma state of the ion beam
Physical parameters of DLC conversion and antibacterial effect of different surfaces compared to untreated PE
| DLC-processing (implantation energy, fluence) | Surface adhesion [CFU; mean +/− SD] | Bacterial growth of Ag-DLC-PE [log-levels a/ %]b |
| Planktonic growth [CFU/ml; mean +/− SD] | Bacterial growth of Ag-DLC-PE [log-levelsa / %]b |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comparison of antibacterial ions deposited with II: Ag vs. Cu | II (Ag): 60 keV, 1x1017 cm−2 | 2.6x103+/− 2.5x103 | −0.8 / - 85.6 % | <.05* | 1.7x105+/− 8.5x104 | +0.05 / +13.3 % | >.05* | 1st Group |
| II (Cu): 55 keV, 1x1017 cm−2 | 9.0x103+/− 2.6x103 | −0.3 / -50.0 % | <.05* | 1,6x105+/− 9.5x104 | +0.03 /+6.6 % | >.05* | 1st Group | |
| II (Ag) vs. II (Cu) | <.05 | >.05 | 1st Group | |||||
| Untreated PE | 1.8x104+/− 9.4x103 | 1.5x105+/− 2.8x104 | 1st Group | |||||
| Comparison of deposition methods: PIII vs. II | PIII (Ag): 5 kV, 1x1017 cm−2 | 2,5x102 +/− 1.5x102 | −2.2 / -99.1 % | <.05* | 1,1x104+/− 2.5x103 | −1.1 / - 96.3 % | <.05* | 2nd Group |
| II (Ag): 10 keV, 1x1017 cm−2 | 2,3x103+/− 3.5x102 | −1.2 / -92.0 % | <.05* | 3,6x104+/− 1.2x103 | −0.6 / - 88.0 % | <.05* | 2nd Group | |
| PIII (Ag) vs. II (Ag) | <.05 | <.05 | 2nd Group | |||||
| Untreated PE | 2.9x104 +/− 2.0x104 | 3.0x105+/− 6.5x104 | 2nd Group |
alog-levels = bacterial counts calculated as shown in following equation: log-levels = log10(CFU of Ag-DLC-PE) – log10(CFU of untreated PE)
bpositive values (log-levels/%) express increased bacterial growth on Ag-DLC-PE compared to PE, negative values express reduced bacterial growth on Ag-DLC-PE compared to PE fluence = amount of ions received by a surface per unit area [ions/cm2]
* = compared to untreated PE
PIII (Ag) plasma immersion ion implantation of Ag-ions
II (Ag/Cu) conventional ion-implantation with Ag- or Cu-ions
CFU colony forming units
SD standard deviation
Fig. 2Analysis of bacterial growth (CFU: colony-forming units)
Fig. 3Bacterial growth of S. epidermidis in the Cu- and Ag-DLC-PE testing group 1 with comparison of bactericidal potency of Ag- and Cu-ions (t = 0: before incubation; t = 24 h: after incubation); * = p < .05 (compared to untreated PE)
Fig. 4Bacterial growth of S. epidermidis in the Ag-DLC-PE testing group 2 with comparison of different deposition methods (t = 0: before incubation; t = 24 h: after incubation; PIII: plasma immersion ion implantation; II: direct ion implantation); * = p < .05 (compared to untreated PE)
Fig. 5SEM-images to exemplify biofilm formation on different polyethylene surfaces. Homogenous biofilm grade 5 after incubation with S. epidermidis on native PE (a), reduced biofilm grade 3 on Ag-DLC-PE processed with PIII (5 kV, 1x1017 cm−2, b)
Fig. 6Silver release kinetics of different Ag-DLC-PE (deposition method: PIII; fluence: 1 × 1017 cm−2, 5 × 1016 cm−2, and 1 × 1016 cm−2) and untreated PE samples