ArticleBiomaterials2022
Ink-jet 3D printing as a strategy for developing bespoke non-eluting biofilm resistant medical devices.
Article in Biomaterials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Printing to Fight Antimicrobial Resistance Through Nano/Microstructured Platforms.Chemical record (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Recent advances in phyto- and microorganisms-mediated synthesis of copper nanoparticles and their emerging applications in healthcare, environment, agriculture and food industry.Bioprocess and biosystems engineering · 2025Review
- Light-Assisted 3D-Printed Hydrogels for Antibacterial Applications.Small science · 2024Article
- Strategies to Mitigate and Treat Orthopaedic Device-Associated Infections.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Exploiting Generative Design for 3D Printing of Bacterial Biofilm Resistant Composite Devices.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Chronic infection as a result of bacterial biofilm formation on implanted medical devices is a major global healthcare problem requiring new biocompatible, biofilm-resistant materials. Here we demonstrate how bespoke devices can be manufactured through ink-jet-based 3D printing using bacterial biofilm inhibiting formulations without the need for eluting antibiotics or coatings. Candidate monomers were formulated and their processability and reliability demonstrated. Formulations for in vivo evaluation of the 3D printed structures were selected on the basis of their in vitro bacterial biofilm inhibitory properties and lack of mammalian cell cytotoxicity. In vivo in a mouse implant infection model, Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation on poly-TCDMDA was reduced by ∼99% when compared with medical grade silicone. Whole mouse bioluminescence imaging and tissue immunohistochemistry revealed the ability of the printed device to modulate host immune responses as well as preventing biofilm formation on the device and infection of the surrounding tissues. Since 3D printing can be used to manufacture devices for both prototyping and clinical use, the versatility of ink-jet based 3D-printing to create personalised functional medical devices is demonstrated by the biofilm resistance of both a finger joint prosthetic and a prostatic stent printed in poly-TCDMDA towards P. aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus.
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.