ArticleColloids and surfaces. B, Biointerfaces2020
Self-defensive antimicrobial biomaterial surfaces.
Article in Colloids and surfaces. B, Biointerfaces, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antifouling and antimicrobial coating with intelligent pH-responsive charge-switching capability prevents catheter-associated obstructions and infection.Bioactive materials · 2026Article
- On-demand biofilm removal by shape-memory triggered local changes in surface topography.MRS bulletin · 2026Article
- Strategies for biofilm inhibition: the role of synthetic drug- and nanotechnology-based agents.Archives of microbiology · 2025Review
- Novel Nano Drug-Loaded Hydrogel Coatings for the Prevention and Treatment of CAUTI.Advanced healthcare materials · 2024Article
- Supramolecular Peptoid Structure Strengthens Complexation with Polyacrylic Acid Microgels.Biomacromolecules · 2024Article
- Targeted Anti-Biofilm Therapy: Dissecting Targets in the Biofilm Life Cycle.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Physically Switchable Antimicrobial Surfaces and Coatings: General Concept and Recent Achievements.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Self-defensive biomaterial surfaces are being developed in order to mitigate infection associated with tissue-contacting biomedical devices. Such infection occurs when microbes colonize the surface of a device and proliferate into a recalcitrant biofilm. A key intervention point centers on preventing the initial colonization. Incorporating antimicrobials within a surface coating can be very effective, but the traditional means of antimicrobial delivery by continuous elution can often be counterproductive. If there is no infection, continuous elution creates conditions that promote the development of resistant microbes throughout the patient. In contrast, a self-defensive coating releases antimicrobial only when and only where there is a microbial challenge to the surface. Otherwise, the antimicrobial remains sequestered within the coating and does not contribute to the development of resistance. A self-defensive surface requires a local trigger that signals the microbial challenge. Three such triggers have been identified as: (1) local pH lowering; (2) local enzyme release; and (3) direct microbial-surface contact. This short review highlights the need for self-defensive surfaces in the general context of the device-infection problem and then reviews key biomaterials developments associated with each of these three triggering mechanisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.