Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28969628›Full record

ReviewJournal of nanobiotechnology2017

Bio-mimicking nano and micro-structured surface fabrication for antibacterial properties in medical implants.

Alka Jaggessar, Hesam Shahali, Asha Mathew, Prasad K D V Yarlagadda

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of nanobiotechnology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 119 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

119 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

59 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alka JaggessarScience and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9384-8224
Hesam ShahaliScience and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Asha MathewInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Prasad K D V YarlagaddaScience and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. y.prasad@qut.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Orthopaedic and dental implants have become a staple of the medical industry and with an ageing population and growing culture for active lifestyles, this trend is forecast to continue. In accordance with the increased demand for implants, failure rates, particularly those caused by bacterial infection, need to be reduced. The past two decades have led to developments in antibiotics and antibacterial coatings to reduce revision surgery and death rates caused by infection. The limited effectiveness of these approaches has spurred research into nano-textured surfaces, designed to mimic the bactericidal properties of some animal, plant and insect species, and their topographical features. This review discusses the surface structures of cicada, dragonfly and butterfly wings, shark skin, gecko feet, taro and lotus leaves, emphasising the relationship between nano-structures and high surface contact angles on self-cleaning and bactericidal properties. Comparison of these surfaces shows large variations in structure dimension and configuration, indicating that there is no one particular surface structure that exhibits bactericidal behaviour against all types of microorganisms. Recent bio-mimicking fabrication methods are explored, finding hydrothermal synthesis to be the most commonly used technique, due to its environmentally friendly nature and relative simplicity compared to other methods. In addition, current proposed bactericidal mechanisms between bacteria cells and nano-textured surfaces are presented and discussed. These models could be improved by including additional parameters such as biological cell membrane properties, adhesion forces, bacteria dynamics and nano-structure mechanical properties. This paper lastly reviews the mechanical stability and cytotoxicity of micro and nano-structures and materials. While the future of nano-biomaterials is promising, long-term effects of micro and nano-structures in the body must be established before nano-textures can be used on orthopaedic implant surfaces as way of inhibiting bacterial adhesion.

Indexed as

Prostheses and ImplantsAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaBacterial InfectionsBiocompatible MaterialsBiomimetic MaterialsBiomimeticsHumansHydrophobic and Hydrophilic InteractionsNanostructuresNanotechnologyPlant LeavesPlantsSurface PropertiesAnti-Bacterial AgentsBiocompatible MaterialsAntibacterial behaviourBactericidal mechanismsBio-mimickingMedical implantsNanofabricationSuperhydrophobicity

Identifiers

PMID28969628
PMCPMC5625685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.